&ii 



[.LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. I 



V---®"WrWl"- 

Shelf 3\/6 5"0 ?[■ 

^4- 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 



AN INTRODUCTION 



TO THE STUDY OF 



Ecclesiastical Polity 



BY yy^ 

WILLIAM JONES SEABURY, D.D. 

{ECTOR OF THE CHURCH OF THE ANNUNCIATION AND CHARLES AND ELIZABETH 

LUDLOW PROFESSOR OF ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY AND LAW IN THE 

GENERAL THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, NEW YORK. 



^ 



'^S^. 



NEW YORK : ^' 

CROTHERS & KORTH 

246 Fourth Avenue 




^< 









Copyright, 1894, 

BY 

CROTHERS & KORTH. 



The Library 
OF Congress 

WASHINGTON 



Press of J. J. Little & Co. 
Aster Place, New York 



PREFACE. 

Few subjects are more important, or, in view of the 
confusing effect of controversies, more difficult to be un- 
derstood, than that of the government of the Church ; 
not only as such understanding affects our duty to God 
in the matter of religious faith, but also as it bears upon 
our duty to our neighbor, and particularly upon what we 
owe to the Civil Authority. 

The following pages are the result of an effort to think 
out to their proper conclusions certain fundamental prin- 
ciples in this subject considered in these relations, and to 
apply the conclusions to existing facts. What success 
may have attended the effort, the reader will determine 
according to his own judgment, which, in many cases, will 
doubtless be more just than that of the writer. The 
effort, however, with such assistance as the writer has 
been able to derive from the learning of others, has been 
honestly made ; and although neither in its principles nor 
in its applications does it extend so far as is desirable, 
yet the process which it essays is certainly one for which 
there is great need, especially in regard to the American 
system here treated. If the book shall in any degree 
meet the need, or prove of service in aiding others to 
meet it, the author will be content. 



4 PREFACE. 

The digesting of the matter here presented into the 
form of propositions and remarks, has been found useful 
in lectures to students in this department ; and may, it 
is hoped, prove a convenience to the more general reader, 
to whose candid consideration the work is respectfully 
submitted. 

W. J. S. 

Annunciation Rectory, New York, 
Feast of St. Bartholomew^ 1894. 



ANALYSIS. 



Proposition I. Natural and Moral Entity, ... 23 

Human government a condition of moral being. Distinc- 
tion between natural and moral being. Imposition of 
moral being a condition of society. Origin and variety 
of moral entities. Abstract from Puffendorf, App. A. 

Proposition II. Human Government based on Divine 

Will, 25 

Natural capacity of man. Limited by will of the Creator. 
Blackstone's statement. Divine will expressed or im- 
plied. Evidence of Divine will. 

Proposition III. Three elementary Departments of 

Government, ........ 27 

Of Divine imposition. In the family and the Church 
essentially and formally. In the State essentially. 
Original blending of powers in the family. Evidence 
as to form, nature, and limitations of government in the 
family. 

Proposition IV. Relation of the three Departments, . 30 

Distinct spheres. Insufficiency of either without the 
others. Proper function of the family. Nature and 
sanction of civil authority. Nature and sanction of 
ecclesiastical authority. Practical value of the State to 
the Church. 

Proposition V. Relation of Church and State, . . 32 
Distinct communities. Jurisdiction concurrent. Jurisdic- 
tion complementary. Theory that Church and State 
are different branches of one government. Involves a 



O ANAL YSIS. 

PAGE 

theocracy. Tendencies of this theory. Traces of the 
theory in English and Puritan practice. Judaic parallel. 
Explanation of the typical character of Jewish institu- 
tions of government. Applied to the Church and to the 
State. Discrimination between the two in the will of 
The Christ. Underlying idea in the process which pro- 
duced the Papacy. Two universal sovereigns. No 
common arbiter. Inevitable tendency. Result in Eng- 
land. Difhculties in the application of true theory. 
Statement of principles. Jurisdictions in what sense 
concurrent. In what sense complementary. Different 
kinds of law in the State. Different kinds of law in the 
Church. Different purpose and sanction, though com- 
mon basis. Discrimination of obligation. Doctrine of 
passive obedience. Statement of principle. Professor 
Chase's note. Laws of the Church, how expressed. In- 
clusive force of the word " canon." Originally involved 
exercise of judicial as well as legislative function. In 
later form properly legislative. Definition of the term. 

Proposition VI. The Church co-existent with Redemp- 
tion, . . . • 41 

The Church in its most comprehensive sense. The Church 
in its relation to man ; made necessary by the fall ; based 
upon redemption ; identical under differing forms. The 
Church coeval with fallen humanity. Existing under 
various dispensations : 

A. The patriarchal, involving coincidence of the 
Church with the family : a. As first constituted in 
the covenant with Adam, and continued in the line 
o* Seth ; b. As preserved in the covenant with Noah ; 
c. As reconstituted in the covenant with Abraham. 

B. The Mosaic, when the Church family had grown 
into a nation. 

Characteristic of these two dispensations as compared 
with the third : 

C. The Christian, including : a. Period of transition ; 
b. Period of settlement and organization ; c. Period 



ANAL YSIS. 



beginning with Bishops succeeding to office of 

Apostles, and continuing to the end. 
The Church indefectible, as inferred from: A. Relation to 
plan of redemption. B. Prophecy. C. Promise of our 
Lord. D. Perpetuity of the Apostolic office. E. Ex- 
pressions of the Apostles. F. Reason of its institution. 

Proposition VII. Ecclesia : the Society whose mem- 
bers are called out, ....... 45 

The severance from the world. The work of grace. The 
heavenly call to eternal happiness. The supernatural 
truth revealed in Christ. The means of salvation. * 

Proposition VIII. The Catholic Church distinguished 

from all other Societies 46 

Distinguished from pagan infidels ; Jews ; heretics ; schis- 
matics. General statement of distinction between the 
true Church and all conventicles. 

Proposition IX. Essential properties and notes of the 

Church, 48 

The faith, sacraments and ministry of Christ absolutely 
proper to His Church, and to no other society. In what 
respect the Church is : i. One. Unity why imperfect. 
Unity in what sense consistent with division. The con- 
nection of every lawful division with the original society. 
The Episcopate as the centre of unity. The present 
abnormal condition. The rule of restoration. Distinc- 
tion between schismatical societies and their individual 
members. The responsibility of the trust of a lawful 
connection with the Church. 2. Holy. 3. Catholic. 
4. Apostolic. 

Proposition X. The test of the right to the name of 

Church, 52 

In what sense the name properly applied to a society. 
Several entrances, properly part of a house, do not 



« ANAL YSIS. 

PAGE 

identify it with a house in the neighborhood. Desig- 
nation of parts of the Church by their location. Free 
appropriation of the name by modern religious societies. 
Cause of this. Conviction which leads to it. Assump- 
tion from which the conviction grows. The point in 
question. Nature of evidence in regard to it. Treat- 
ment of the evidence. Underlying idea that the only 
true Church is the Church Invisible. The form of the 
Church Visible therefore a matter of conventionality. 
Resentment of the Church claim natural under this per- 
suasion. Persuasion connected with profession of higher 
, sanctity. The antidote to the poison of this persuasion. 

The misleading comparison. Caution and explanation. 
Application to objectors. Natural right superseded by 
moral obligation. The claim to membership in the 
Church Invisible no release from obligation of member- 
ship in Visible Church of Christ's appointment. Not a 
question of names or of courtesy, but of fact and of law. 
Names not in themselves notes of the Church, but only 
as they truly indicate possession of its essential qualities. 
The question in every case. 

Proposition XI. The visible Ministry correlative to the 

visible Church, . . . ' . . . .60 

Intrusted with powers correspondent to those of the 
earthly ministry of Christ. The ministry represents the 
authority of Christ. The authority such only as is de- 
rived from Him. General description of powers of the 
ministry. These characteristic of the ministry of Christ. 
The parallel between Christ and His ministry. Our 
Lord how here regarded. Distinction between His 
personal and official life. Not commonly recognized. 
Consequence of misapprehension. The Church in being 
before Pentecost. Both its origin and the operation of 
the Holy Ghost to be referred back to the life of Christ. 
His Apostles continue His work, actuated by the same 
power which actuated Him. Parallel of evidence. Ex- 
tension of parallel. Degrees of advancement. Corre- 



ANAL VSIS. 9 

PAGE 

spondent pow^s and limitations in the first stage. 
Preaching and baptizing. Limited jurisdiction. What 
baptism the Apostles received. Change after our Lord's 
resurrection. Correspondent effect on power and mission 
of both. Added powers of oversight and government. 
In what sense the Apostles were successors of our Lord. 
Resulting parallel in the powers of the Diaconate and 
the Episcopate. Intermediate parallel of priesthood. 
Our Lord's exercise of the priestly power. His com- 
mission to the Apostles. When our Lord Himself 
advanced to this degree. His consecration to the priest- 
hood a process. His priestly act necessarily anticipates 
the completion of the process. The same conclusion (in 
other respects also) applicable to His exercise, and colla- 
tion upon the Apostles, of authority fully pertaining to 
Him after His Ascension. The fulness of power reached 
by degrees. Distributed by the Apostles into three 
orders. The constitution of two orders subordinate to 
their own. The distribution not so much a strict parti- 
tion as a diffusion. The entirety of the threefold power 
pertaining only to the Episcopate. The distribution into 
three distinct offices involves the distinction of order. 
That only one kind of power constitutes the power of 
order, a false conclusion. The power of the priesthood 
being the only power of order, Bishops have no power 
of order as such. Effect of this principle joined to that 
of indelibility. Influence of this error on Papacy and 
Presbyterianism. Roman doctrine of order. Presby- 
terian inferences. False principle variously perverted. 
How corrected. Scholastic distinction between order 
and jurisdiction. Discriminated from primitive distinc- 
tion. Power of order properly distinguished from right 
to exercise power. Power to make Corpus Chrisii veru7n. 
Lodged in the priesthood as power of order. Power to 
rule Corpus Christi inysticuin. Not allowed to be power 
of order. Lodged in the Pope as power of jurisdiction. 
Thence derived to the Bishops. Thus made revocable : 
-though order indelible. Consequent dependence of 



lO ANAL YSIS. 

PAGE 

Bishops. Made equal with Presbyters in all except what 
is derived from and may be removed by the Pope. How 
certain Protestants plough with the Pope's heifer. Argu- 
ment of the schoolmen establishes Papal in proportion 
as it brings down Episcopal authority. 

Proposition XII. Forms of Ministry correspondent to 

several Dispensations, ...... 80 

I. Patriarchal : Power of head of family. Ordinary succes- 
sion in line of eldest son. Patriarchal theory sketched 
by Professor Dwight. Sir Henry Maine's " Supernatural 
Presidency." Dean Jackson's origin of government. 
Inference as to priestly functions. Evidences. Tradi- 
tion concerning Shem and Melchizedek. 2. Mosaic : 
Succession to the ministry by inheritance limited to family 
of Levi. Succession of the Levitical priesthood. Dia- 
gram of order of succession. Qualification for exercise 
of inherited right. Exceptional cases not affecting polity. 
3. Christian : Ministry by succession ; not of inheritance ; 
but by selection and appointment. 

Proposition XIII. Permanence of Apostolic Office. 

Divine guidance of its first incumbents, . . 88 

I. Permanent chief office. Various views of the ministry 
result from different conceptions of the Church. Effect 
of regarding the true Church as invisible. Or a school 
of philosophy. Inconsistency of words and acts of Christ 
with this idea. Twofold purpose of Christ. Evidence 
of both intents. Two facts to be accepted. Each on 
its own evidence. Not contradictory, but complementary. 
Inconsistent with the idea that the visible Church is the 
voluntary expression of an invisible abstraction. Con- 
gregational and Independent theories. Theories assum- 
ing the Divine or Apostolic origin of the Church. The 
Presbyterian theory. The Episcopal theory. Necessity 
of observing reality of distinction between spiritual unity 
and external union. The sacramental idea. The iden- 



ANALYSIS. II 

PAGE 

tification of the visible with the invisible Church " over- 
throweth the nature " of it. The mystical theory. The 
substitution of the Church for Christ. The Church not 
a force : nor Christ. The Church a society. The cus- 
todian of the faith. The channel of grace. Of which 
Christ is the Head. Government by a successive minis- 
try. Transmission to the Apostles of authority exercised 
by Him. Evidence of this official authority. Sufficient 
even without St. John xx. 21-23. No reason to exclude 
this. Consideration of modern notion respecting it. The 
promise in perpetuity involves the permanence of the 
office. Bearing of the case of St. Thomas. 2. First 
incumbents directed by the Holy Spirit. Evidence. 
Pentecostal gifts. Not necessarily limited to the twelve. 
Nor communicating official grace to others than officers. 
Diversities of gifts. Grace to each for his own vocation. 

Proposition XIV. Exercise of Official Pov^ers by 

Apostles, 103 

Is evidence of their derivation from Christ. Inconsistent 
with evolution out of the consciousness of the Church. 
Or delegation by it. The ministry mediates between 
Christ and the Church. Not the Church between Christ 
and the ministry. Evidence of exercise. 

Proposition XV. The transmission of Official Au- 
thority 105 

Distinction between , ordinary and extraordinary gifts. 
The special evidence of miracles. The standing evi- 
dence of the Church. The ordinary official authority. 

Proposition XVI. The Extraordinary subordinate to 

the Ordinary, 108 

Recognition by apostles of authority not conferred through 
them. No office recognized as superior to their own. 
No powers exempt from their authority. Case of 
St. Paul ; Barnabas ; Epaphroditus ; other Apostles ; 



12 ANALYSIS. 

PAGE 

Prophets, Pastors, Presbyters ; Evangelists, Teachers, 
Deacons. Alternative indicated by this evidence. Evi- 
dences of subordination. 

Proposition XVII. Presumption raised requires proof 

in rebuttal, iii 

Want of proof. Confirmatory evidence. Case of the 
angels. Analogy of Jewish ministry. Intimations of 
the will of Christ ; appointment of two orders under 
Him ; the three degrees of advancement. The tradi- 
tion of the Church. 

Proposition XVIII. Episcopal Authority subject to the 

limitations of Apostolic Authority, . . . -113 

Limitations of apostolic authority : i. Involved in their 
original commission. 2. Imposed by original Apostles 
under Divine guidance. 

(r) A. Obedience to the law of God. B. Authority 
spiritual and not civil. C. Subordination of indi- 
vidual to college. Three important principles, 
(2) A. Duty of consulting inferior orders and laity. 
The council of Acts xv. Authority, and concur- 
rence. Principles. B. Distinction of fields or 
spheres of work. The common mission. The 
actual practice. Jackson's curious comment on 
Acts i. 24. Limits territorial. Limits personal. 
General rule : case of St. James ; case of the 
angels. Principle deduced from this evidence. 
Question of residence. General principle to be 
noted. The test of permanence in apostolic insti- 
tutions. The proper value of this test. 

Proposition XIX. Distinction between Power and 

Right involved in fact of limitations, . . . 123 

The power of order distinguished from the right to exer- 
cise the power. Jurisdiction the right to exercise 
power. Technical terms ; habitual and actual juris- 



ANALYSIS. 13 

PAGE 

diction ; order and mission. Palmer's illustration. 
Comparative sense of mission and jurisdiction. Bear- 
ing upon Roman schism in England. Application to 
the same transplanted to the United States. Question 
of intrusion considered. Priority of occupation. The 
question which lies back of that of priority of occupa- 
tion. Sinful terms of communion. Aggressive and 
defensive policies. Mission and jurisdiction in the 
broader sense. Follow upon valid ordination. Lawful 
localization of universal mission. Bailey, Hooker, 
Mason. Three ways of determining. Historical view. 
Potter's summary. Authority in any case from the 
Church. Need of authoritative act additional to ordina- 
tion. English and American provisions. Jurisdiction 
of Bishop between election and confirmation. Distinc- 
tion between spiritual and coercive jurisdiction. Prin- 
ciples affecting relation between Church and State. 
The Church, how viewed in the United States civil sys- 
tem. Civil obligations of Church corporations. Right 
of judicial tribunals to determine as to faith and order of 
the Church. Considered as matter of fact. The prin- 
ciple in the question. Civil rights of the clergy. Re- 
sultiiig from implied contract. Harrison's citation of 
Hugh Darcy Evans. 

Proposition XX. Vesting of certain Powers in the 

body governed, ....... 143 

Justified by principle of due regard for inferior orders and 
laity. Powers of the Church as a spiritual society and as 
a society of men. The former a trust primarily in the 
Episcopate. The latter partake of the nature of civil 
authority. In respect to purpose and sanction. On 
what principle recognized in the Church. The precedent 
of Acts XV. Limitations of authority involved in its 
exercise by canon. Significance of the recognition of 
imperial and royal power. The testimony of history. 
Abandonment in American civil system of position 
hitherto maintained by Christian princes. Exterior 



14 ANALYSIS. 

character of American civil authority. Natural reversion 
of interior authority of similar kind to the laity of the 
Church. Examples. Principle of the consent of the 
governed. The essential idea of constitutional liberty. 
Obligation of modern civilization to the Church. Cau- 
tions. Every privilege carries its own inconvenience 
with it. True theory not to be worked without regard to 
fact. Nature and extent of Episcopal obligation. The 
proper principle of improvement. 

Proposition XXI. The Federal idea, . . . .149 

Undivided equal share of each incumbent in the authority 
of the Apostolic office. Maxim of Cyprian. Common 
expression of that authority involves federation among 
equals. Entire authority of each Bishop in his own 
place. Qualifications to be observed by all presuppose 
general consent. What constitutes federation. Power 
of individual action not excluded by preexisting obliga- 
tion. Voluntary combination of those who have power 
of independent action essentially federate. Cyprian's 
expression of the principle. Importance of this consid- 
eration. Misconception of relation of individual to 
college. The unity of the Episcopate. In what it 
consists. The direct responsibility to Christ. Lawful 
restraint upon individualism. Principle of subordina- 
tion. Reference to Scriptural and historical evidence. 
Apparent intent of founder of the system. The Church 
constituted of many churches. The Ignatian precept. 
Considerable period between Apostolic and Episcopal 
councils. Diocesan synods prior to Episcopal. Their 
constitution and authority. Their independence subject 
to the common faith and order. Natural consciousness 
of need of external authoi-ity. Freedom from embarrass- 
ment of later theories. Provincial system yet undevel- 
oped. Natural resort to mutual counsel according to 
apostolic precedent. Expression of common authority 
derived force from common consent. Distinctions be- 



ANALYSIS. 15 

PAGE 

tween Bishops attendant on development of provincial 
system. Apostolical Canon XXXIV. Incidental evi- 
dence of Episcopal councils about the period of these 
canons. Subordination of individual Bishop to the 
Episcopate so represented and acting within the common 
faith and order. Not that of subject to sovereign: but 
of one sovereign to federation of sovereigns. Repetition 
of principle. Consequence of contrary principle. Na- 
ture of proof required for it. Ground of recognition of 
act of imperfect representation of Episcopate. What is 
in fact true. Principle of acceptance of authority of 
councils. Bishop : Episcopate : : Diocese : Church. Quo- 
tation from Bishop Beveridge. Modern recognition of 
responsible share of laity in administration. The im- 
portant question in regard to it. Principle which rules 
the whole relation of the laity to this duty. Why the 
single Bishop is the unit in analysis of Episcopate. Why 
the Diocese is the unit in analysis of the Church. In 
what sense and to what extent a province may be re- 
garded as a unit. The Diocese in such case mediately 
represented. Manner or kind of representation does not 
affect the principle. Why the parish or congregation 
not the ultimate unit. Why the province not the ulti- 
mate unit. The ultimate unit the Diocese. 

Proposition XXII. Distribution ot Church Represent- 
ative into civil limits, 167 

Constitutional division not inconsistent with unity. Differ- 
ence between spiritual unity and moral or social union 
instituted for its accomplishment. Contact of the Church 
as a society with men in other relations. No exclusive 
right of existence in the charter of the Church. Warrant 
of Divine institution shared by other institutions. Con- 
tact involves recognition of their right in their own 
sphere. Contact with State in particular political divis- 
ions. Impossibility of individual assent to acts of a 
body. Results in representation. Manner of this 
representation in the Church naturally conformed to 



i6 ANALYSIS. 

PAGE 

that of the State. Universal civil dominion suggestive 
of similar universality in ecclesiastical rule. In the 
diversity of kingdoms and states the Church naturally 

• partakes of their various characteristics. Civil alle- 
giance justifies Church rulers in keeping their own 
supremacy. The justification enforced by further con- 
siderations. Intrusion of external authority into estab- 
lished jurisdiction contrary to Christ's commission. 
Universal adoption of civil limits of ecclesiastical juris- 
diction. The best union to be expected between visible 
Churches. 

Divisions of history of Church Representative : 

I. The primitive period. Abstract from Kennett. 
Quotation from Bingham. Progressive develop- 
ment of synodical form. Its attendant distinctions 
between Bishops. 

II. The imperial period. Unification and precision 
of synodical system. Effect of imperial power. 
First appearance of an Episcopal representation 
proportionable to the Church as a whole ; due to 
the civil authority. Relation between emperors and 
Church representative. 

III. The monarchical period. Emperors : General 
Councils : : Kings : National Councils. The claim of 
the Pope to call universal councils. On what prin- 
ciple denied and resisted. Conflict. The prevail- 
ing instinct. Independence of national Churches. 
Interwrapt with that of the individual Bishop. 
Strongly maintained in England. Why the more so. 

IV. The republican period. Beginnings traceable in 
England. Essential principle of republican govern- 
ment existing in its monarchical system. Qualities 
of Church representative akin to those of the State. 
Influence of the laity. Complications in English 
Church system. Result from struggle to maintain 
its nationality. Synodical system. Provincial 
synods succeeded by convocation. Origin of convo- 
cation. Sketch of history and constitution. Ques- 



ANALYSIS. 17 



tion of its bearing on the American system. Limits 
of parallel. Notable differences. Civil associations 
of founders of American ecclesiastical system. 
Probabilities. Same ends of constitutional liberty 
naturally sought by similar means. Additional con- 
siderations : 

1. Position of the Church in this country. Original 
Episcopal constitution. Deprivation of benefit 
of Episcopal residence. Dependence of mis- 
sionaries on Society for Propagating the Gospel. 
Property vested in parishes. Consequent ten- 
dency. Predisposition of Colonial Church to 
some representative system. The system in 
fact acted on. Groups of clergy and laity 
vi'ithin certain territories. These territories, 
States recently colonies. Abstract reasoning 
in regard to both systems. The moral consid- 
eration. The legal consideration. Reflection 
strengthening moral consideration in the case 
of the Church. Tendency of this reasoning. 
Ground of objection to the process. Incidental 
evidence of civil analogy. The two schools. 
Correspondent in State and Church. Bearing 
of these observations. Evidence of facts in 
ecclesiastical system. The case of Connecticut. 
The Church in the State the unit of the repre- 
sentative system. Diocesan character of the 
unit. 

2. Comparison of institutions in the Church rep- 
resentative with previous institutions of the 
civil system. Series of parallels. The future 
Bingham. His impartial admission, a. Par- 
allel of federation. Independence of the 
Churches in the States. By what limited. 
Absence of recognized common authority. 
Association voluntary. Quotation from Bishop 
White. Consideration of his observations. 
Individualism and Congregationalism pre- 

2 



1 8 ANALYSIS. 



PAGE 

eluded by organization in the union and in the 
several parts. The Connecticut hypothesis, 
how far lawfully supposable. Bishop White's 
probable feeling and intent. Combination of 
State organizations the feasible mode of eflfect- 
ing original project. Diocesan State idea in 
the ore. The way prepared by Providence. 
Wisdom of influential men the result of obser- 
vance of principles inherent in the Church sys- 
tem. The three important and guiding prin- 
ciples, of neighborhood, civil allegiance, and 
dependence on Episcopate. Affinity of Epis- 
copal to civil jurisdiction. Attracted to the 
State as the unit of civil system here ; in like 
manner as to chief city in primitive times. 
Jurisdiction of the English Episcopate. The 
Diocese in the State. Right of the Church in 
each State to seek completion in the Episcopate. 
Right to associate first and seek Episcopate after- 
ward. Both rights, in fact, exercised. Dr. 
Seabury's election (1783), consecration (1784). 
Relation of Connecticut to the movement of 
association. Significance of its action. Other 
evidences of the federal idea. The federal idea 
in the civil system. Three facts. Diverse mis- 
apprehensions of republican principles, b. Par- 
allel of organization. Organic law. Original 
constitution of the Church. The Church in 
every integral portion dependent upon this. 
Relations of integral portions regulated by it 
without other agreement. Right of association 
in dependence upon it. Organic law of such 
association properly called its constitution. 
Position of integral portions in the United 
States. Right to embody principles of associa- 
tion in written instrument. Origin and import 
of the term "constitution" applied to it. 
Whether used in the sense of " constitutions " 



ANALYSIS. 19 

PAGE 

in ecclesiastical terminology. Reason assigned 
for regarding this instrument as of essentially 
different character from that of the civil con- 
stitution. Reason refuted. Practical con- 
siderations. Generally recognized political 
signification. Changes in process of comple- 
tion of ecclesiastical system. Correspond to 
changes in the civil process. Similarity in pro- 
visions for amendment of constitution. Anal- 
ogy in respect of powers conferred. Nature 
and limitations of power. Power legislative, 
conformable to constitution. Case of the ten 
canons. Dr. Vinton's argument examined. 
Articles adopted as rule of conduct. Canons 
subsequent. Constitution a law to lawgivers. 
c, d. Parallels of representation and legisla- 
tion. Correspondence in scheme of repre- 
sentation. The triple consent in legislation. 
The trace of the executive in the system. 
Historical bearings of the question. Corre- 
spondence in limitation of power of numerical 
majority. Defence of the right of the majority. 
Considerations as to limitations in the exercise 
of the right. Value and use of the concurrent 
majority. Illustration. Recognition in civil 
system. Illustration of endeavor to balance 
majorities. Illustration in civil legislation. 
Kent's statement as to senators. Instruction. 
Correspondence in ecclesiastical system. Firm 
grasp of the principle of the concurrent ma- 
jority. Dangers to be guarded against. 
Effectual means provided. Admirable states- 
manship of Bishop White. e. Parallel of 
the judiciary. System not fully formulated in 
either. Pointed omission to devolve judicial 
powers on general convention or conventions 
in States. Adherence to the principle in sub- 
sequent history, f. Parallel of development : 



20 ANAL YSIS. 



PAGE 

(i) Correspondence in regard to original extent 
of jurisdiction. Comparison of constitutional 
provisions. Statements of Professor von Hoist. 
His position. The intent to extend jurisdiction. 
(2) Correspondence in general policy of exten- 
sion : {a) in regard to newly admitted mem- 
bers ; {b) in regard to exercise of jurisdiction 
over dependencies. Consideration of these de- 
pendencies : {a) Statement in regard to status 
of new members. Agreement of two schools 
in each system. Diocese substituted for State 
in ecclesiastical constitution. Amendment 
resulting from what. Double recognition in- 
volved. {I)) United States more than a feder- 
ation. Federal union the basis of the system. 
System produces the political community. 
Community represented by common govern- 
ment. Has certain common interests. Of 
which common government is administrstor. 
Principle applied to territory. Political care 
of residents. Appointment of rulers by com- 
mon government. No representation as con- 
stituent part of the union. Ecclesiastical 
system. Based on federation. Involves more 
than federation. Obligation to associate. Care 
for members in outlying districts. Diocese 
conterminous with State. Ecclesiastical union 
conterminous with civil union. Efforts to 
reach out beyond Hmits of States composing 
union. Resolutions of 1792 and 1808. Mis- 
sionary system. Canonically developed. Ap- 
pointment of Bishops by common government. 
Delegation without representation. Difference 
in one particular of development. Nature of 
Episcopal representation. The Episcopal rep- 
resentation of dependencies. Different kinds 
of dependencies. Rights of Bishops in respect 
to them derived from canon. Range of these 



ANALYSIS. 21 



PAGE 



rights. General feeling finding expression in 
canonical provisions. Intimation of unconsti- 
tutionality. Accretion upon ecclesiastical 
system. Rights traceable to what principle. 
Principle how far properly applicable. Lim- 
itation of rights under ecclesiastical constitu- 
tion. Double bearing of canonical extension 
of Episcopal rights in the system. Question 
of representation distinguished from that of 
quorum. Bishop White's view considered. 
Practical value of the civil analogy. 

Proposition XXIII. The unity of authority over indi- 
vidual members of component parts and depend- 
encies, 256 

The analogy and foundation of the Federal system. Three 
principles to be considered : i. Dioceses the component 
parts. Elder and later terminology. Quotation from 
Bishop White. Application. Equivalence of Diocese 
and Church in the State. Citations from the Constitu- 
tion. Application. Power of alteration where resid- 
ing. Where it does not reside, and why. Whether the 
Bishops are part of the Church in the Diocese. Why the 
fact was not more plainly recognized in the Constitution. 
Distinction between dioceses and missionary jurisdic- 
tions. Representation of the latter an anomaly. 2. Dis- 
tinct existence of the Church as associated.. Qualities of 
this form of being. Its name and relations. The con- 
stitution the organic law of what. Binding upon what. 
3. The direct and immediate authority. Results from 
what. Exercised under what limitation. Range of 
this authority. Comparison with Diocesan authority. 
The double check. Practical sufficiency of the system. 
What it needs for its improvement. Its special mission. 
The thought that chiefly aids the understanding of the 
system. The value of its especial characteristic. 



ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY 



PROPOSITION I. 

Human government is a condition of moral being, imposed 
upon man as a natural being for the regulation of his will 
in society. 

The natural powers of man, those which he has in 
himself as an individual, must needs be modified in their 
use by the action of other individuals. Although de- 
signed by his Creator for society, man was created single, 
and afterwards brought into companionship. " Some 
time must have elapsed before the creation of the 
woman, during which the several kinds of inferior 
creatures were brought before the man, and received 
names from him. . . . Society began in Paradise 
by the sacred and mysterious institution of marriage, 
designed even then as a type of the ineffable union of 
Christ and his Church."* This beginning of society 
worked a change in the conditions of man's life, and 
thus there was imposed upon him, in addition to that 
which was simply natural, another form or mode of 
being which may be called moral. Actually, at least 
from this time, man has lived in a social state ; but, 



* " The Church of the Redeemed," by Rev. Samuel Farmar 
Jarvis, D.D., p. ii. 



24 ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. 

abstractly, we may distinguish between his natural be- 
ing, according to the divine creation, and his moral being, 
according to the divine imposition. 

For the better understanding of this distinction, and 
for a useful and suggestive analysis of society, the 
student is referred to Puffendorf's essay on the origin 
and variety of Moral E^iiities., being the introductory 
chapter to his " Law of Nature and of Nations," a par- 
tial abstract of which, arranged with a view to tabulation, 
will be found in the Appendix. 



THE DIVINE WILL. 2$ 



PROPOSITION II. 

The will of God is the foundation of all authority in human 
government. 

Man, as by nature an intelligent being, is capable of 
imposing conditions of moral being upon himself ; but, 
as a created being, he is limited in this respect by the 
will of his Creator.* 

Such forms of government and rules of action as man 
imposes upon himself, derive their authority from the 
express or implied will of God. They are either based 
upon the Divine commandment, or result from the free- 
dom in which man may have been left by the Divine 
permission, or absence of commandment. Otherwise, 
I.e., where they are contrary to the Divine will, they have 
no authority of moral obligation. 

It is, of course, not necessary that the Divine will 
should be expressed for the sanction of all institutions of 
human government, but only that those which men choose 
to establish should not be contrary in form or principle to 
those as to which the Divine will has been expressed and 
is ascertainable. And the evidence of that Divine will 
by which the authority of human institutions of govern- 
ment must be tested, is to be sought not in the inward 
conviction of the individual man, nor yet solely in the 
judgment of individuals collectively in a community ; but, 
ultimately, in Holy Scripture as interpreted by the tradi- 
tional testimony of the Church, f and in the general con- 



* " Man, considered as a creature, must necessarily be subject to 
the laws of his creator, for he is entir-ely a dependent being." — 
Blackstone's Commentaries, i. 39. f 2 St. Pet. i. 20. 



26 ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. 

sent of mankind, which is the accepted evidence among 
civilized nations of the law of nature^a law which is not 
contrary, but agreeable, to Holy Scripture so interpreted.* 



* " We must further observe that this natural law does not only 
respect such things as depend not upon human will, but also many 
things which have been allowed by the general consent of mankind. 
Thus dominion, as now in use, was introduced by man's consent, 
and being once admitted, this law of nature informs us that it is a 
wicked thing to take away from any man against his will what is 
properly his own." — Grotius : Of War and Peace, Book I. ch. i. 4. 

What later writers regard as the law of nature was by the civil 
law regarded as the law of nations ; and use was regarded as evi- 
dence of it. 

" The law of nature is not a law to man only, but likewise to all 
other animals. . . • That law, which a people enacts for the 
government of itself, is called the civil law of that people. But that 
law, which natural reason appoints for all mankind, is called the law 
of nations, because all nations make use of it." — Inst. Just., Lib. I. 
Tit. ii., Harris, pp. 6, 7. 

Accordingly Grotius says: "The proofs on which the law of 
nations is founded are the same with those of the unwritten civil 
law, viz., continued use, and the testimony of men skilled in the 
law." — War and Peace, B. I. ch. i. xiv. 

It is true that Puffendorf rejects this principle on the ground of 
inconvenience, and Cumberland ("Laws of Nature," Intr.) with 
the desire of deriving the law of nature from its proper cause or 
foundation. It cannot, of course, be held that the law of nature is 
founded in consent, but only that consent is evidence of it, and this 
evidence must necessarily be applicable only to the more elementary 
and general principles of human action. If, as Blackstone observes, 
the nature of man had continued as originally created, reason would 
have been a sufficient guide ; and the practice of men would then 
have furnished adequate evidence. Hence the need and the benefit 
of the Divine Revelation in Holy Scripture. 

" The doctrines thus delivered we call revealed or Divine law, 
and they are to be found only in the holy scriptures. These precepts, 
when revealed, are found upon comparison to be really a part of the 
original law of nature." — Blackstone's Commentaries, i. 42. 



ELEMENTARY DEPARTMENTS. 27 



PROPOSITION III. 

In three departments human government is of Divine imposi- 
tion : the Family, the Church, and the State ; in the first 
two, essentially and formally ; in the last, essentially. 

In the nature of the obedience required, and of the 
sanctions upon which it is required, these departments 
are essentially distinct, but in form they have not always 
been distinct. The powders belonging to both Church 
and State were originally blended with those belonging 
to the Family, 

In the Family the government is placed by Divine law 
in the husband and father. " Thy desire shall be to 
thy husband, and he shall rule over thee " (Gen. iii. 16). 
" Honor thy father and thy mother " (Ex. xx. 12). '' If a 
woman vow . . . unto the Lord . . . being in 
her father's house in her youth ; and her father hear her 
. . . and hold his peace . . . then all her vows 
shall stand . . . but if her father disallow her . . 
not any of her vows . . . shall stand : and the Lord 
shall forgive her, because her father disallowed her. And 
if she had ... an husband, when she vowed," the 
same rule applied as to him (Num. xxx. 3-9). In St. Mat- 
thew xix. 4-6, and St. Mark vii. 9-13, our Lord republishes 
the original law involving the unity of marriage and the 
subordination of the woman to the man, and of children 
to parents. St. Paul teaches children to obey their 
parents, on the ground of the obligation of the fifth com- 
mandment (Eph. vi. 2) ; and enjoins upon the wife "that 
she reverence her husband " (Eph. v. 33). This govern- 
ment, however, is not absolute, but limited by correlative 



28 ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. 

duties of the ruler. The duty — not the sentiment, but the 
duty — of love to the wife is enjoined upon the husband 
under the sanction of the love of Christ for the Church 
(Eph. V. 25) ; and forbearance is urged upon parents even 
as obedience upon children. " Fathers, provoke not your 
children to wrath " (Eph. vi. 4). So in the relation of 
master and servant — always in the Scriptural aspect a 
part of the family relation — the power recognized in the 
master and the duty enjoined upon the servant do not 
exclude the duty of the master and the right of the serv- 
ant. " Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters 
. . . with good will . . . as to the Lord . . . 
and, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing 
threatening : knowing that your Master also is in heaven " 
(Eph. vi. 5-9). 

In the State the form of government is not settled by 
the Divine will. The principle of subordination to the 
civil authority is settled, but not the form in which that 
authority is to be exercised. The acquirement and the 
tenure of power to rule over men is attributed to the gift 
and will of God, as in Dan. ii. 21, v. 18-22 ; the exercise 
of the power to tax is recognized, as in St. Matt. xvii. 
27, xxii. 2 1. St. Paul states the doctrine in comprehen- 
sive terms (Rom. xiii. 1-6) : " Let every soul be subject 
to the higher powers . . . the powers that be are 
ordained of God," etc., and urges on Timothy the duty 
of prayer for all that are in authority (i Tim. ii. 1-3) ; 
and St. Peter states the same doctrine (i Pet. ii. 13-17). 

" Of what kind soever the government be, or upon 
what condition soever the magistrates be chosen or 
admitted, or howsoever their power be limited, the power 
or magistracy is from God, is the ordinance of God, and 
may not be resisted. That this nation should be governed 



ELEMENTARY DEPARTMENTS. 29 

by a king, another by peers or nobles, another by the 
people, or by magistrates of the people's choosing either 
annual or for term of life, this is not determined jure 
divino^ by any express or positive law of God, but is 
reserved unto the guidance of his ordinary providence, 
who sometimes directs one people or nation to make 
choice of this form, another to make choice of that." * 

In the Church the Divine will has not only lodged a 
power of government, but has also made provision for 
the form in which that power is to be exercised. 



* Thomas Jackson, D.D., a learned divine of the seventeenth 
centut}', sometime President of Corpus Christi College, Oxford, and 
Dean of Peterborough. " Treatise of Christian Obedience," chap, 
vii. § 6. Works, vol. xii. p. 312. Oxford edition, 1844. 



-30 ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. 



PROPOSITION IV. 

The three departments of human government supplement one 
another in the regulation of the human will in society. 
Each one has its own sphere : neither is sufficient with- 
out the others. 

The family is the school in which human beings are 
to be trained from youth for the discharge of duties in 
Church and State. The Church and the State have 
separate fields of work, in which the Church may be said 
to begin where the State ceases to act in the moral 
development of the individual. 

The State teaches men the duty of outward obedience 
to such commands as are necessary for the order and 
prosperity of the community, and enforces its commands 
by fear of direct punishment involving life, liberty, and 
property. 

The Church teaches men such obedience, but on 
higher principles ; leading men to obey for conscience' 
sake those commands of the State which are in accord- 
ance with the will of God, and requiring also other 
duties, of worship, faith, repentance, and charity. The 
Church requires all the good which the State requires, 
and more also ; but enforces its requirements only by 
spiritual sanctions, with a view to fit men for the future 
life. 

Practically the State holds the position of keeping in 
a certain degree of obedience to the moral law those 
whom the influence of the Church never reaches or never 



RELATION OF DEPARTMENTS. 3 1 

affects. This kind of forcible government is necessary 
to enable the Church to work in peace. But the Church 
teaches the faithful not to need compulsion, but to 
obey for conscience' sake. (Rom. xiii. 1-4 ; i Tim. ii. 

1,2.) 



32 ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. 



PROPOSITION V. 

The Church and the State are distinct communities, the 
governments having jurisdiction partly concurrent and 
partly complementary : concurrent in so far as they 
extend over the same territory and relate to the same 
persons ; complementary in respect to their administra- 
tion of law. 

I. The theory that there is in every nation a commu- 
nity of individuals whose temporal interests are provided 
for by one department, while their spiritual interests are 
provided for by another department of the same govern- 
ment, is only sound on the supposition that the gov- 
ernment is a Theocracy. In the instance of Theocratic 
government presented by the Old Testament, we find 
this theory developed in practice. The Jewish people 
were one community, ruled by one government with 
civil and ecclesiastical departments. But these depart- 
ments were kept within their respective limits by the 
power of the Divine Sovereign. Wherever this experi- 
ment is tried without the existence of such an acknowl- 
edged Sovereign power, the inevitable tendency is to 
elevate one above the other, and, in the long run, either 
the civil will control the ecclesiastical by virtue of its 
coercive power, or the ecclesiastical will take possession 
of the coercive powers of civil government, and so the 
Church will swallow up or emasculate the State. In 
the one case, Erastian views will prevail ; in the other, 
the views that have become identified with the Papacy. 

The traces of the working of this theory are not quite 
undiscernable in the English system : and sometimes the 



CHURCH AND STATE. ZZ 

parallel has been run in this respect between England and 
Judaea. Certainly, if the practical result of the connec- 
tion between Church and State in England has not been 
to weaken the Church and subordinate it to the power 
of the State, the tendency in that direction has given 
continual ground of watchfulness and apprehension. 
And among the Puritans in New England, where the 
Mosaic or Theocratic idea prevailed, the strong propen- 
sity was to give the civil rulers power over the ecclesias- 
tical in ecclesiastical matters ; or, rather, it led to an 
arbitrary government by the same men in matters both 
spiritual and temporal. 

All arguments drawn from the precedent furnished by 
the Jewish Dispensation are controlled by the fact that 
Christ established the Church in the Christian Dispensa- 
tion as His Kingdom in, and not of, the world, alto- 
gether free from the domination of the State in regard 
to matters within its own sphere, and entirely relieved 
from the care of such matters as exclusively belonged to 
the State. 

The typical nature of the Jewish institutions is, in 
this particular, sometimes misunderstood. The Jewish 
Church was a type not of the Church of England, nor 
of the Church of any single nation, but of the Church 
Catholic. And so the Jewish State might be regarded 
as typical of the civil power under the Christian Dispen- 
sation, although not of the power of any single nation, 
but of the civil power throughout the world. As the 
civil laws of the Jews were subordinate and conformed 
to the will of God, so should civil laws in general be con- 
formed to the Divine will. Now, if the type is to be 
applied to the Christian Dispensation, it must indicate 
the relation of mankind to the civil and ecclesiastical 
3 



34 ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. 

powers. In the abstract, men are amenable to these two 
kinds of power as different departments of the common 
government of the universal Sovereign. 

If Christ had reestablished the civil power among 
men as He did the ecclesiastical power, and had settled 
the form of government in one as He did in the other, 
we may suppose that He would have settled it in such 
a way as to bring the earth under the control of one 
government combining the civil and ecclesiastical power. 
Then Church and State would have had a scarcely dis- 
tinguishable joint existence and dominion. 

This was the underlying idea in the process which 
produced the Papacy — a universal sovereign in the 
State, and another universal sovereign in the Church — 
the Emperor and the Pope together speaking and acting 
the will of God in the government of man : a grand 
conception, but baseless so far as the word of God is 
concerned, and therefore a failure.* The system was 
not in fact a Theocracy ; for God does not govern man- 
kind under the Christian as under the Jewish Dispensa- 
tion. There was no common arbiter between the two 
universal sovereigns, except God in providence and 
God in eternal judgment. Hence the inevitable rivalry 
between the two : the triumph of the spiritual by the use 
of the power of the temporal ; the ultimate resumption 
by the civil authority of powers which rightly belonged 
to it, and the natural usurpation of other powers which 
did not belong to it. And in England, although the 
Reformation left untouched the identity and historic 
continuity of the Church, yet the idea of the conjoint 



*The student should read "The Holy Roman Empire," by 
James Bryce, D.C.L., Professor of Civil Law in the University of 
Oxford. 



CHURCH AND STATE. 35 

existence of Church and State as one community was 
not wholly outgrown. Hence, among some, the anxiety 
to find in the temporal sovereign the power which is to 
control the two departments ; and hence, among others 
who maintain the independent power of the Church in 
respect to matters properly spiritual, the need of watch- 
fulness of the tendency toward the subordination of the 
ecclesiastical to the civil authority. 

Opposed to such a conception, and free from many 
difficulties which it engenders, is the theory that the 
State and the Church are distinct communities, possessing 
distinct governments, which administer distinct powers 
of government, each government having jurisdiction over 
the members of its own community in respect to such 
matters as pertain to it. 

There must be difficulties in the practical application 
of any theory. It is impossible, for example, not to 
encounter difficulties in the determination between the 
two powers of the question as to what are the matters 
which do pertain to each. But, apart from what may be 
urged in support of this theory in point of principle, it 
seems obvious that the difficulties are fewer when it is 
recognized that Church and State are distinct communi- 
ties, the authority of each having been sanctioned by 
Christ ; that He has left the form of the State govern- 
ment open to human regulation ; and, that, while He has 
substantially settled the form of Church government. He 
has so settled it by the endowment of the Episcopate 
with joint and several powers as to make it adaptable to 
the civil polity of any State in which it may reside, and 
to enable its rulers to govern His kingdom officially, 
while personally they are subject to the government of 
the State. 



36 ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. 

2. The jurisdictions of these two governments are 
concurrent in so far as they extend over the same territory 
and relate to the same persons. 

The persons who occupy a certain territory owe alle- 
giance to the State, /. ^., to the civil authority which 
governs in that territory. They also owe allegiance to 
the Church. 

But they are necessarily and by force subject to the 
State : not necessarily, but only from choice, and by 
moral obligation, subject to the Church. 

The same persons may be under these two kinds of 
government, and those who govern in one may be the 
governed in the other. 

3. The jurisdictions are complementary in respect to 
their administration and imposition of law. 

a. The State administers the Divine law of morals so 
far as it relates to the temporal well-being of man in 
society, republishing and declaring that law. 

b. The State enacts additional laws which oblige by 
virtue of the authority of the lawgiver ; so that the mat- 
ter enjoined or forbidden, being in itself neither right nor 
wrong, becomes right or wrong as being commanded or 
forbidden. 

Both these kinds of law are enforced by temporal 
penalties. 

c. The Church also administers the Divine law of 
morals, republishing and declaring that law as occasion 
may require ; but in so doing it has in view not only 
the temporal well-being of man in society, but also the 
spiritual well-being of the individual both here and here- 
after. Accordingly the Church appeals to other motives 
than those appealed to by the State. The State appeals 
to the fear of temporal penalties ; the Church appeals to 



CHURCH AND STATE, 37 

motives arising from the love of God and man, and the 
hope of eternal blessedness. 

d. The Church also administers a positive law of God, 
distinct from the moral law, enjoining the use of the 
Sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist, and the ob- 
servance of other rites and ceremonies of Divine 
authority. 

e. The Church also imposes its own positive laws in 
respect to temporal and spiritual matters, which, like the 
laws of the State additional to the moral law, are of obli- 
gation upon its members, not as enjoining or forbidding 
that which is in itself right or wrong, but because they 
are enacted by competent authority. These positive 
laws, being additional to the Divine law, either moral or 
positive, must not be contrary to that Divine law ; nor 
should they contravene such laws of the State as have 
been enacted in conformity therewith. 

The relative obligation of one who lives under this 
twofold allegiance is, it is true, sometimes, and neces- 
sarily, difficult to determine. There are two very sim- 
ple modes of settling the question. One is that the 
ultimate authority lies in the State, and therefore, in 
case of a conflict of laws, the obligation to the Church 
must give way to that due to the State. The other 
is that the ultimate authority rests in the Church, and 
therefore, in case of conflict, the obligation to the State 
must give way to that due to the Church. But simplicity 
is not always the measure of rectitude. On the contrary, 
it is one of the trials of faith, that the right road is beset 
with difficulties. The fact is, that obligation is deter- 
mined by sanction ; and each allegiance must be dis- 
charged under the constraint of that sanction which it is 
competent to impose. The laws of the civil authority 



3^ ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. 

must be obeyed, or the penalty of disobedience must be 
endured : and the same is true of the laws of the Church 
— only it is manifest that the sanctions of the latter 
depend for their force and effect upon the faith of the 
individual ; whereas, in the former case, they operate 
altogether from without. Assuming, however, that the 
faith of the individual leads him to accept the authority 
of the Church, which in a given case is opposed to that 
of the State, it will be a matter of conscience for him not 
to obey the State law. It will not follow from this that 
the State law has no authority, and should not be en- 
forced : it will follow merely that the conscientiously dis- 
obedient individual must take the consequences of his dis- 
obedience ; and if his faith lead him to prefer the spiritual 
to the temporal, he must be content with spiritual conso- 
lation in the endurance of temporal tribulation. The old 
English divines have furnished some amusement to the 
ignorant by their maintenance of what is called the doc- 
trine of Passive Obedience ; yet the principle here stated 
is the substance of that doctrine ; and, apart from the 
question of Chui'ch, which appears to be an irritating 
factor in the argument, there is probably no honest man 
who keeps a conscience at all, who will not accept the 
principle that while the civil authority has an entire right 
to enforce its laws by their proper penalties, the individ- 
ual is bound to suffer those penalties rather than obey 
the laws which his conscience rejects.* 



* The general principle of discrimination of obligation cannot be 
more happily stated than by Professor Chase in his note at page 6 of 
his valuable edition of Blackstone's Commentaries : "It is plainly 
apparent that a human law might be directly in conflict with a uni- 
versally received principle of moral duty, and there could be no 
question in such a case that a man would be under a moral obli- 



CHURCH AND STA TE. 39 

The laws of the Church are found in forms and 
ceremonies prescribed for use and occasion ; in rubrics 
pointing out the manner of use and attendant actions ; 
in creeds and articles determining faith and doctrine ; and 
in canons, which have a wider application than to matters 
of faith or worship or the conduct of the Divine service. 
Yet canon, in its general sense of rule, may be said to 
include all the others. A form of worship, for example, 
is but the expression of the Church's rule for that service;* 
and the distinction between rubric and canon, though 
it has some special significance in the Church in this 
country, is rather technical than material. Canons in 
their earliest form, considered as expressions of the will 
of the Church, appear to have resulted from the action 
of Bishops in council, either among themselves or in 
their diocesan relations, determining as to cases brought 
before the council, and deducing from the determination 
in the particular case a general rule of future applica- 
tion. Thus they seem to have involved the exercise of 
both the judicial and legislative functions of the Episco- 
pate ; but in later form they are more properly legisla- 



gation to violate the law ; but human tribunals, established to en- 
force the law, would still hold him under a legal obligation to observe 
the law, and would punish its infraction. In fact, such tribunals 
could not do otherwise if they fulfilled their purpose. And as posi- 
tive laws seldom or never conflict with principles of morals which 
are of universal acceptance, it would lead to pernicious results if men 
were not held strictly bound to obey every established law, whether 
they deemed it right or wrong, just or unjust ; for, otherwise, each 
man's conscience would be set above positive law; and men's con- 
sciences are very variable, when their interest or personal gratifica- 
tion is concerned." 

* In this sense the word is used in the phrase, "Canon of the 
mass." So also we speak of the "Canon of Scripture." 



40 ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. 

tive : SO that a canon may be defined to be a rule of 
faith or action prescribed by competent ecclesiastical 
authority, imposing obligation upon such persons, and 
as to such matters, as are within the jurisdiction of that 
authority. 



CHURCH COEVAL WITH FALL OF MAN. 4I 



PROPOSITION VI. 

The Church of God on earth is coexistent with the redemp- 
tion of man. 

" The Church, in its most comprehensive sense, includes 
other worlds than the earth, and other intelligent creatures 
than man."* But "with the Church as it consists of 
men and angels (Heb. xii. 22, 23) we are not 10 meddle. 

. . What manner of union is between holy men and 
angels, let it be defined by angels themselves, or at least 
by men that are their consorts in the blissful vision of 
God and of His Christ." f 

The Church, in so far as it relates to man, dates from 
the promise of the Redeemer (Gen. iii. 15). As existing 
among a fallen race, it was made necessar}'- by the fall, 
and consists of a selection of men brought out of their 
natural condition into covenant relation with God, based 
upon the redemption of Christ. As such, the Church of 
God is one from the beginning to the end of the world : 
identical, although existing under various forms or dis- 
pensations. 

This proposition, therefore, includes two others : 

1. The Church is coeval with fallen humanity. 

2. The Church is indefectible. 

I. That the Church is coeval with fallen humanity 
appears historically from the • Scriptures, which show the 
establishment of the covenant of redemption directly 



* Jarvis's "Church of the Redeemed," Introduction, i, 
f Jackson's Works, Book XII. ch. iii. 2. Cf. also the first four 
chapters of Field's " Of the Church." 



42 ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. 

upon the fall (Gen. iii.), and the continuance of a chosen 
people within that covenant from that time. 

The dispensations under which the Church has existed 
are the Patriarchal, the Mosaic, and the Christian. 

A. The Patriarchal dispensation includes : 

a. The period in which the family and the Church 
were coincident, as at first constituted in Adam. Cain 
was cast out of the Church, which was continued in the 
line of Seth. In the next generation began men to call 
themselves by the name of the Lord (Gen. iv. 26, 
margin)^ in contradistinction to descendants of Cain, 
and such as might apostatize to them. Afterward the 
" sons of God " — not angels, but the descendants of Seth 
through Enos — who called themselves by the name of 
the Lord, intermarried with the daughters of men, in 
consequence of which ensued wide-spread corruption. 
(Gen. vi. 1-7.) * 

h. The period when, by a new selection in Noah, 
family and Church again became coincident. To save 
His Church, God chose Noah and his family, and de- 
stroyed the rest of men. (Gen. vi. 8 ; vii. ; viii.) 

c. The period when God again made choice of a 
particular family, new constituting the Church in Abra- 
ham. (Gen. xii. 1-3 ; xvii. 1-14.) 

B. The Mosaic dispensation covers the period extend- 
ing from Moses to Christ, when the family in which the 
Church was planted grew into a nation. 

Under these two dispensations the Church existed in 
an imperfect and preparatory condition. The Church 
in the present, or Christian, dispensation, exists in its 
maturity ; although, of course, its existence is still pre- 



* Cf. Jai'vis, "Church of the Redeemed," pp. 14, 15. 



CHURCH INDEFECTIBLE. 43 

paratory to that which it will possess in the world to 
come. Having reference to the economy of salvation by 
a Redeemer, we say that in previous dispensations the 
Church was incomplete, as possessing the promise, but 
not the fulfilment of the promise of redemption. The 
expectation of the redemption was the characteristic of 
the Church in previous dispensations ; the possession of 
that redemption is the characteristic of the Church in 
the present dispensation. 

C. The present dispensation includes : 

a. The period of transition from the Jewish period, 
extending from the baptism of Christ to the day of 
Pentecost. 

b. The period of the settlement and organization of 
the Church by the Apostles, under the direction of the 
Holy Ghost. 

c. The period beginning with Bishops succeeding into 
the office of Apostles, and continuing to the end. 

2. The indefectibility of the Church under the present 
dispensation is to be inferred : 

A. From the relation of the Church to the plan of 
redemption, which makes the imposition of another 
dispensation unnecessary, and therefore improbable. 

Redemption is wrought in time^ to procure salvation 
for eternity. Various dispensations might be requisite 
in preparation for redemption ; but, redemption being 
wrought, the Church is thereby placed under the dis- 
pensation which is immediately introductory to eternity. 

B. From prophecy, which expressly declares the per- 
petuity of the kingdom of Christ, e.g. (Dan. ii. 44) : "A 
kingdom which shall never be destroyed." (St. Luke, i. 
23) : "Of His kingdom there shall be no end." 

C. From the promise of our Lord himself : " On this 



44 ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. 

rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall 
not prevail against it " (St. Matt. xvi. i8). 

D. From the perpetual commission to the ministry 
which He set over the Church : " Go ye . . . and, 
lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the 
world " (St. Matt, xxviii. 19, 20). 

E. From expressions of His Apostles, e.g.: "We which 
are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord " 
(i Thess. iv. 15). " As often as ye eat this bread . . . 
ye do show the Lord's death till He come " (i Cor. 
xi. 26). 

F. Fromi the reason of its institution. While the world 
lasts, there must be the same necessity for the application 
of God's mercy and grace which caused the existence of 
the Church ; and while the reason for the existence of the 
Church continues, the Church continues. 

On the subjects of this proposition the student should 
read Jarvis's " Church of the Redeemed," introduction 
and first period ; Bilson's " Perpetual Government of the 
Church," ch. i., ii. ; and Field's "Of the Church," Book 
I. ch. i.-vi. 



ECCLESIA. 45 



PROPOSITION VII. 

The Church is the multitude and number of those whom 
Almighty God severeth from the rest of the world by the 
work of His grace, and calleth to the participation of 
eternal happiness by the knowledge of such supernatural 
verities as concerning their everlasting good He hath 
revealed in Christ His Son, and such other precious and 
happy means as He hath appointed to further and set 
forward the work of their salvation. So that it is the 
work of grace and the heavenly call that give being to 
the Church, and make it a different society from all other 
companies of men in the world that have no other light 
of knowledge nor motive of desire but that which is 
natural ; whence, for distinction from them, it is named 
JEcclesia, a. multitude called out." * 



* Taken from Field, "Of the Church," Book I. ch. vi. For 
explanation see his ch. vii. 



46 ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY, 



PROPOSITION VIII. 

As there are marks and notes which distinguish Judaism 
from Paganism, and Christianity from Judaism, so there 
are marks and notes which distinguish the Catholic 
Church from all other societies of men and professions of 
religion in the world. 

Dr. Field, in his treatise " Of the Church," Book II. 
ch. ii., treats of this subject to the following effect : 

1. That which distinguishes the Church from the 
society of pagan infidels, is the profession of Divine, 
supernatural, and revealed verities ; but this profession 
does not distinguish Christians from Jews. 

2. The profession of Divine verities revealed in Christy 
whom the Church acknowledges the Son of God and the 
Saviour of the world, distinguishes it from the society of 
Jews. 

3. The profession of the faith of Christ, while it dis- 
tinguishes the Church from pagans and Jews, does not 
distinguish the right believing or orthodox Church from 
heretics ; but it is so distinguished by the entire profes- 
sion of Divine verities according to the rule of faith left 
by Christ and the Apostles. 

4. The entire profession of the faith, while it distin- 
guishes from heretics, is not a complete and proper 
distinction of the Catholic Church, because schis- 
matics may, and sometimes do, hold such entire pro- 
fession. 

5. The notes that are inseparable, and absolutely 



CATHOLIC CHURCH DISTINGUISHED. 47 

proper, and which always sever the true Church from all 
conventicles,* are these : 

First. The entire profession of those supernatural 
verities which God hath revealed in Christ His Son. 

Secondly. The use of such holy ceremonies and sacra- 
ments as He hath instituted and appointed to serve as 
provocations to godliness, preservatives from sin, memo- 
rials of the benefits of Christ, warrants for the greater 
security of our belief, and marks of distinction to separate 
His own from strangers. 

Thirdly. An union or connection of men in this pro- 
fession and use of these sacraments under lawful pastors 
and guides appointed, authorized, and sanctified to direct 
and lead them in the happy ways of eternal salvation. 



* Dr. Field says: "All conventicles of erruig and seduced mis- 
creants j^^ but the principles are equally sound without the expletives. 



4^ ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY, 



PROPOSITION IX. 

The faith, sacraments, and ministry of Christ are so abso- 
lutely proper to the Church that no society which lacks 
them can be, as such, part of the Church ; and resulting 
from these properties of the Church are certain prop- 
erly applicable terms of description, indicating qualities 
whereby it may be known — called, hence, notes of the 
Church — such as those named in the Creeds, wherein we 
profess our faith in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic 
Church. 

I. The Church is One : the company of God's chosen 
people existing now as always, though in different form, 
in contradistinction to the rest of mankind. 

The chosen people are one in respect of their common 
calling ; their common Divine Head ; their common 
adherence to the faith, sacram.ents, and ministry of 
Christ ; one in respect of the Divine purpose : not per- 
fectly one in fact, because human corruption in this, as 
in other matters, contravenes the will of God. 

The Church, in principle, according to its Divine con- 
stitution, is capable of a certain lawful division consistent 
with unity. Constitutionally perpetuated and extended, 
its several parts are one Church, however they may be 
distinguished in respect of location, or by local and tem- 
porary usages which, although additional, are not con- 
trary to the Divine constitution of the Church. 

But every lawful or constitutional division is connected 
with every other such division by a common bond, and 
that common bond is its lawful and constitutional con- 
nection with that society which Christ founded. This 



PROPERTIES AND NOTES. 49 

connection is made through the ministry upon which 
Christ devolved the duty of the extension of the Church. 
Those who are in communion with the Apostolic ministry 
are in communion with the Church which Christ com- 
mitted to the government of the Apostolic ministry. 

Hence the Episcopate, which is the continuation of the 
Apostolic ministry, appears as the Divinely appointed 
centre of the unity of the visible Church. In its normal 
condition the Church possesses Bishops^ who demonstrate 
their communion with Christ by their communion with 
each other in the faith and sacraments of His appoint- 
ment ; and membei^s^ who demonstrate their communion 
with Christ by their communion with their respective 
Bishops. 

Thus the Church is seen to be capable of a division 
into parts which is not inconsistent with unity. Every 
such part is in communion with every other through that 
communion which each has with its Bishop, the Bishops 
being in communion with each other, on the basis and 
through the instrumentality of the original faith and 
sacraments of Christ. But no one part is the whole 
Church ; and in so far as any one portion departs from 
the rule of faith, or the order prescribed in the Divine 
constitution, it departs from the unity of the Church. 

The present condition of the Church is abnormal in 
respect of the absence of a visible unity. The restoration 
of visible unity by the reestablishment of intercom- 
munion between coordinate branches of the Church can 
only be by a recurrence on all sides to that original con- 
stitution which has the warrant of Divine authority, and 
is evidenced by the structure of the primitive Church ; 
by the removal, where they exist, of such things as are 
contrary to that constitution ; and the restoration, where 



50 ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. 

they are wanting, of such things as are essential to it, 
and by the mutual toleration of such things as, although 
additional, are not contrary to it.* 

It is important, in considering the doctrine of the unity 
of the Church, to distinguish between schismatical socie- 
ties and their individual members. 

Such societies as have been organized under the name 
of Churches, but in an unauthorized and unconstitutional 
way, are separate from the unity of the Church. These 
societies possess no authority, having never derived 
authority through a lawful connection with the Church 
founded by Christ. Their position is schismatical, but 
how far their individual members may be guilty of 
schism can be known only to God. In general, probably 
their intent is to be members of the Church. And it 
may be assumed that such evidences as they give of the 
possession of the grace of God are due to the mercy 
of God, Who does not hold them responsible for a posi 
tion which is attributable to the fault of others rather 
than of themselves. 

But this in no way alters our responsibility for the 
trust of a lawful connection with the Church founded by 
Christ, and should in no degree lessen our faith in the 
Divine institution of the Church as a visible society. 

The historic continuity of that society which Christ 
founded, and the necessity of a lawful connection with it 
through that ministry which He appointed to perpetuate 
it, are principles which it is the duty of Christians to 
hold as essential to the unity of Christ's Church. 

2. The Church is Holy on account of its separation 

* As to the possibility of the division of the Catholic Church in 
respect of external communion, see Palmer, "Church of Christ," Pt 
I. ch. iv. S III. 



PROPERTIES AND NOTES. 51 

from the world, and on account of the holiness required 
of its members, and conferred by the Holy Ghost on such 
as are faithful. 

3. It is Catholic as being no longer confined to one 
nation as formerly, but open to all men ; as the recipient 
of all truth necessary to salvation; and as continuing 
through all ages. 

4. It is Apostolic as having received its ministry and 
its faith and sacraments from Christ, through the 
Apostles. 



52 ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. 



PROPOSITION X. 

The claim of any particular body to be a Church is to be 
brought to the test of its possession of these notes. 

If these notes are necessarily characteristic of the 
Church as a whole, it is obvious that no society which 
does not partake of them can properly be called a 
Church. Indeed, no society can be called a Church in 
the proper sense of the term, except it be the whole 
Church, or that portion of the whole which lawfully ex- 
ists in some particular place. There being but one Christ, 
and the Church being the body of Christ, there is but 
one Church, though the name Church may be properly 
enough applied to each portion, which is the Church to 
those whom it includes in any particular place. A house 
may have several entrances or openings^ and each of 
these is to him who enters by it as much the house as 
the others are to other comers. Strictly speaking, of 
course, the entrance is not the house ; but that is because 
the part is not the whole. Yet each entrance is the house 
to him who goes in by it, in a sense in which another 
building in the neighborhood is not the house. And so 
it is quite proper to call a part of the Church, a Church, 
or the Church, provided it be really a part of this house 
of God's building, and not a house which men have 
built in the neighborhood. Hence in the Apostles' time, 
and throughout the age of unity, that portion of the 
( hurch which existed in any particular place was nat- 
urally known as the Church of that place ; as we read 



RIGHT TO THE NAME CHURCH. 53 

in the New Testament of the Church at Antioch, the 
Church of Ephesus, the Church in Smyrna, etc. 

But in modern times we have a great number of re- 
ligious societies of more or less importance, which are 
called Churches. Some of these in their origin did not 
assume this title ; but as their members by degrees looked 
more and more exclusively to those societies for the privi- 
leges which are only in the gift of the Church to bestow, 
so by degrees the title was in common parlance assured 
to them. And at present there is no more hesitation, on 
the part of a society organized for religious purposes, in 
appropriating the title of Church, than there is on the 
part of an association incorporated under the banking 
laws in assuming the name of bank. So deeply rooted 
is the feeling out of which this assumption grows, that 
it is apt to be regarded as a breach of courtesy to fail in 
the designation, for instance, of a Congregational So- 
ciety as a Congregational Church, or of the Methodist 
Society as the Methodist Church. And among those who 
are fond of discussing the question of the union of 
Protestant societies, it is the common phrase of the day 
to speak of them as " the Churches." 

The use of this language proceeds from the conviction 
that each of these societies is an independent and auton- 
omous body, and that its members, as free agents, have 
the right to associate themselves in such a body. It 
must be obvious, however, that this conviction results 
from the assumption that men are without any obligation 
in this matter, except such as they may impose upon 
themselves. If it were true that no provision of the 
Divine will imposed upon men the obligation of mem- 
bership in a Church constituted by Divine authority, it 
would, of course^ follow that men would have the right to 



54 ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. ■ 

constitute for themselves such societies as might in their 
judgment be useful in the attainment of the same ends 
for which the Church claims to have been constituted, or 
for such o'f them as they might consider particularly de- 
sirable. But the truth of this supposed want of provi- 
sion is the point in question. It is, indeed, in evidence 
that God left not Himself without witness in this matter, 
either in the Patriarchal, the Mosaic, or the Christian 
Dispensation ; and that the Holy Scriptures, which are 
accepted by those to whom this evidence is presented as 
the sufficient history of the development of these suc- 
cessive dispensations, throughout plainly show the exist- 
ence, by Divine authority and institution, of an organized 
and visible society, distinguished from all other societies 
or companies of men, and based upon the calling and 
covenant of its Divine Head. But this evidence, al- 
though it has been presented and re-presented in in- 
numerable forms, with the widest scope and the most 
exact precision, is waved aside as impertinent and incon- 
clusive ; and, ignoring all preexisting obligation, men 
continue to act upon their supposed right to associate 
themselves according to no principle but that of their 
own individual sense of what is desirable, that is, accord- 
ing to their own will. 

Nothing, probably, has contributed more to this pre- 
vailing persuasion than the idea that, according to the 
Divine will and purpose, the Church is not a visible and 
organized society, but consists of the whole number of 
those who by their true faith and sincere purpose are 
acceptable to God ; and who, therefore, since God only 
can discern the thoughts and intents of the heart, are 
known to God alone. If the Church consists only of 
those who possess qualities which are to human percep- 



RIGHT TO THE NAME CHURCH. 55 

tions invisible, the Church itself is invisible ; and if the 
Church be, according to the Divine will, invisible, the 
gathering of men into one or more visible societies is a 
matter of pure conventionality, the rules and conditions 
of each association being entirely subject to the agree- 
ment of those who are concerned in it. So that in pro- 
portion to the prevalence of the idea that the Church of 
God, the only Church which He has called into being, 
and recognizes as His own, is an invisible, unorganized 
multitude, consisting solely of individuals who are di- 
rectly and immediately united to Christ by the several faith 
of each person, will be the prevalence of the persuasion 
that the visible Church consists only of such of these 
persons as may of their own will and choice, and by 
reason of similarity of tastes and circumstances, associate 
themselves for the purpose of mutual relations of a re- 
ligious character. And where this persuasion prevails, it 
is natural that men should be indifferent or hostile to the 
claim of any society or body of men to represent in any 
particular place that Society which Christ originally 
founded, to be extended and perpetuated to every place, 
and throughout all time, as the custodian of His faith 
and the dispenser of His grace, for the eternal benefit of 
those whom He has, by admission to membership in it, 
called to become parties to His covenant. Nor can one 
be surprised that such a claim, with whatever modesty of 
humility presented, should be perfectly hateful to those 
imbued with such persuasion ; and that until such per- 
suasion can be removed, those who are actuated by it 
should continue their adherence to existing societies, and 
proceed to the formation of new ones as occasion may 
seem to them to require. 

This persuasion is the more difficult to remove because, 



5 6 ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. 

like most heretical notions, it is connected with the profes- 
sion of a higher degree of sanctity. To be united with 
Christ directly, and without any human mediation, seems 
to some to involve a more vital religion and a truer 
spirituality than to be connected with Christ outwardly 
by the medium of a visible ministry and sacraments. 
And so, indeed, it does, if the connection be merely out- 
ward. But, on the other hand, to be united with Christ 
by the grace communicated by means of a visible ministry 
and sacraments of His institution involves certainly a 
truer spirituality than is involved in the rejection and 
disregard of means of His appointment, and the substitu- 
tion of some other means, or of a bare personal volition. 
The most effectual antidote to the poison of this persua- 
sion is to be found in the right understanding of the 
position of the Church, as being a means to an end and 
not the end itself. Outward ministries are instituted for 
inward benefits, and (if there is sufficient . evidence of 
the Divine institution) presumably because no other way 
for the communication of such benefits seemed equally 
effectual to the Divine wisdom. To throw these out- 
ward means aside, therefore, and make pretension to the 
appropriation of the inward benefits without them, is 
properly evidence not of spiritual mindedness, but of 
impiety. 

That which misleads men in the study of the Church as 
presented in the Gospel, is the comparison of the real 
relation to Christ and the spiritual unity with Him there 
attributed to His true followers, and the apparent absence 
of such relation and unity in many who are partakers of 
the ministrations of the Church ; from which it is inferred 
that the words of Christ with reference to the Church are 
to be understood only as pointing to those who possess 



RIGHT TO THE NAME CHURCH. 57 

such relation and unity, and not to those who have been 
equally with them called to the privilege and benefit 
thereof. It is to be remembered, however, first, that the 
language used in the Gospel assumes that to be accom- 
plished which the Divine Founder intended to be 
accomplished ; so that the means instituted are through- 
out treated as effectual means, and the Church is treated 
of as the company of those who are illuminated, regener- 
ated, sanctified, and saved ; and, second, that it is dis- 
tinctly allowed that they are not all Israel that are of 
Israel, and that this company includes, and will always 
continue to include, many who have received the grace 
of God in vam. That those who have not received this 
grace in vain, and who are truly united to Christ, should 
be known clearly to Him and not to the world, is only 
what might be presumed and expected ; and that these 
may be properly enough spoken of as the Church Invisible 
is not to be denied — not only the fact, but this descrip- 
tion of the fact has been always recognized in the teach- 
ing of the Church. But the idea that the Church Visible 
and its means of grace have either not been instituted at 
all, or have been instituted for nothing, and that the true 
Church of God consists of those who are superior to and 
free from all such mediation, and who think themselves 
so mentally and spiritually united to Christ as individuals 
that all such proffered mediation is to be regarded as an 
impertinence engendered of craft or superstition, is one 
that finds no countenance either in Holy Scripture or in 
the teaching of the Church itself, and one, indeed, which 
may be justly regarded as a mere modern invention. 

The claim, then, of any society of men to be a Church, 
if it be based upon the persuasion of an inherent and 
natural right of association, cannot stand if it appear that 



5^ ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. 

the natural right asserted has been superseded by the 
imposition of a moral obligation to be associated in that 
manner, as well as for those ends, which have been de- 
clared by the Divine will. Nor can it be allowed that 
the Scriptures of the New Testament, any more than of 
the Old, give evidence of the right of men individually 
to claim a membership in a Church Invisible which shall 
relieve them from the obligation of membership in the 
Church Visible which Christ instituted, and entitle them 
to institute visible societies at their own pleasure and 
called after their own names, or names of their own 
devising. It is not a question of names or of courtesy, 
but a question of fact, whether such societies, by whatever 
name known, are or are not Churches. Names, indeed, 
are in themselves no notes of the Church, but only in -so 
far as they may truly indicate in any way the possessing 
of the essential qualities of the Church. A true branch 
of the Church, such a division or distinct portion of the 
Church as, in any place may have been lawfully established 
in accordance with the Divine constitution of the whole 
body, may have a name in addition to that of its place of 
residence, without derogating from its right to represent 
the whole body as that part of it which belongs to that 
place. And a mere sect originating in modern times, 
may have a name descriptive of Apostolic origin and 
Catholic character without being either Catholic or 
Apostolic. The question in every case is whether the 
society which is called a Church has the faith, the sacra- 
ments, and the ministry of Christ ; whether it has the 
mark of unity as being one with that Church which 
Christ founded, and as having derived from that source, 
by uninterrupted succession, the faith, sacraments, and 
ministry with which He endowed His Church ; or 



RIGHT TO THE NAME CHURCH. 59 

whether the time can be pointed out when that society- 
organized itself and adopted a faith and sacraments 
which it assumed to be those of Christ, and gave author- 
ity to a ministry which the Episcopal successors into the 
Apostolic office did not communicate.* 



* The student should read in connection with this proposition the 
Rev. Dr. Wilson's "Church Identified." 



6o ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. 



PROPOSITION XI. 

As the Church is by Divine appointment a visible society, 
so it is by the appointment of its Divine Founder con- 
tinually supplied with a visible Ministry intrusted with 
powers correspondent to those exercised by Him during 
His earthly ministry. 

This Ministry represents the authority of Christ. It 
has no authority of itself, but it has such authority as it 
derives from Christ. The powers which Christ as the 
Head of the mediatorial kingdom possesses in all ful- 
ness, He imparts to His Ministry in measure and degree 
for the benefit of His people. 

We infer the powers of Christ to be of three kinds, from 
the three functions which the Word of God attributes to 
Him. He is Prophet, Priest, and King ; and the powers 
which under these names He possesses in. their fulness. 
He imparts to His Ministry in measure and degree. 

These powers maybe generally described as the power 
of speaking and acting from God to the people, as preach- 
ing, baptizing, teaching, warning, censuring, absolving, 
communicating, blessing, ruling, and perpetuating rule 
(overseeing, ordaining, etc.), and the power of speaking 
and acting from the people to God, as mediating and 
interceding by prayer and sacrifice. 

These powers were characteristic of the ministry of 
Christ, and have, since His departure from the earth, 
been characteristic of the Ministry which He established 
in His Church. The parallel between Christ and the 
Ministry which He appointed to succeed Him in respect 
of the powers to be exercised for the benefit of the 



POWERS OF MINISTRY. 6 1 

Church is plainly discernible, and throws much light 
upon the nature and design of the Ministry, as well as 
upon the order and distribution of its functions. 

It is to be noted, in the first place, that, in the relation 
of our Lord to the Church, He is to be regarded as being 
Himself the incumbent of an office comprising certain 
functions. We are not, then, in this connection, to con- 
sider Him only in His Divine capacity as the Eternal 
Word or Son of God, but as the Son of God incarnate, 
and, as such, in His capacity of God made man, receiving 
and executing a commission conferred upon Him by the 
Father, and enabled and qualified for the discharge of 
that commission by the grace imparted by the Holy 
Spirit. He is the Head of the mediatorial kingdom ; 
the Beginning of that new creation of the human race 
which results from His redemption, and which, in the 
counsels of Divine Wisdom, was conceived to replace the 
ruins of the old Adam ; and the Chief of that organiza- 
tion which, in the same wisdom, was designed as the 
means of communicating to men the benefit of participa- 
tion in this new creation, the knowledge of the truth 
Divinely revealed, and the grace whereby the natural 
man is transformed into the spiritual. That our Lord is 
the author of that redemption upon which is based the 
covenant of Divine grace for man, and that He was in 
His human life the perfect model and example of all 
whose faith leads them to be His followers,' is commonly 
recognized by all Christian people. But it is not so com- 
monly understood that His human life was not merely 
individual, but also official, and that what He did was not 
of His own mere motion, but that He was thereunto com- 
missioned by the Father and enabled by the Holy Ghost. 
And the consequence of such want of apprehension is, 



62 ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. 

among other things, the failure to realize the organic 
character of the work of Christ, and the postponement of 
the origin of the Church of Christ to the later period of 
Apostolic or, perhaps, sub-Apostolic times. Even among 
those who have come under the influence of the Church 
idea, and who earnestly believe in and maintain the order 
as well as the faith of the Church, it is not unusual to find 
the Church derived from Apostolic organization, and the 
day of Pentecost assigned as the birthday of the Church. 
That the Church then received an addition of spiritual 
power of which it had before only enjoyed the promise 
is true enough, but to affirm that the Church came then 
first into being, and that the Holy Spirit was then first 
instrumental in the work of its ministry, is to build with- 
out the foundation. In fact, both the origin of the 
Church and the operation of the Holy Spirit upon it must 
be referred back to the life and ministry of Christ Him- 
self. And not only was Christ the founder and, in such 
degree as was suited to the time, the organizer of the 
order of His Church, but what He did in that work is 
specifically attributed in Holy Scripture to the Holy 
Spirit, by whose power He was actuated ; and the Apostles, 
continuing His work by His direction, continue to work 
by the same power of His Holy Spirit. 

The angel which appeared to Joseph assured him that 
that which was conceived in the Blessed Virgin was of 
the Holy Ghost ; * and the angel which appeared to her 
as the herald of the birth of Jesus, foretold that the 
Holy Ghost should come upon her, and the power of the 
Highest should overshadow her, therefore that Holy 
Thing which should be born of her should be called the 



* St. Matt. i. 20. 



POWERS OF MINISERY. (>Z 

Son of God.* Whence it appears, as expressed in the 
Apostles' Creed, that Jesus was conceived by the Holy 
Ghost ; or, as expressed in the Nicene Creed, that he 
was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary ; 
and from the influence and operation of the Holy Ghost, 
both here and throughout His earthly life, the God- 
man Jesus receives His official title of the Christ, or 
the Messiah — the Anointed One. In the Old Testament 
period we find the use of unction, or anointing, in the 
admission to the offices of prophet, priest, and king, 
the functions pertaining to which offices pertain also to 
the office of the Anointed One, of whom those formerly 
anointed had been but the types and foreshadowers. 
And as this unction was the outward and visible sign or 
sacrament of which the Holy Spirit was the invisible 
reality, so the Christ, Whose office was the reality pre- 
signified by those who were anointed with the material 
unction, receives the reality of this sign in the actual 
gift of the Holy Spirit for the work of His office. f 

By the power of the Spirit our Lord is said to have 
been led into the wilderness to endure temptation ; \ to 
have taught, and preached the Gospel ; § to have offered 
himself unto God ; || to have risen from the dead ; ^ and 
to the same Spirit must be attributed that grace which 
He, receiving it upon His Ascension, gave measurably to 
His Church, both for the work of the ministry and for 
the perfecting of the saints.** 

In like manner Apostles are said, for example, to 
preach, being filled with the Holy Ghost ; f f to be wit- 
nesses with the Holy Ghost ; \X to determine rules of 

*St. Luke i. 35. f.St. Matt. iii. 16, 17. :}: St. Matt. iv. i. 

§St. Luke iv. 14, 15, 17, 18. || Heb. ix. 14. IT Rom. viii. 11. 
** Eph. iv. 4-13. tt Acts iv. 8. %% Acts v. 32. 



64 ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. 

conduct in accord with Him ; * to be instrumental in the 
communication of the Holy Ghost ; f and to separate 
the unworthy from the communion of the Church by the 
power of their possession of Him: ;|; all of which instances 
imply what no one, in view of the promise of Christ, will 
doubt, that what the Apostles did in their ministry was 
done by the power of the Holy Spirit. § 

In extension of this parallel it is further to be noted 
that neither our Lord nor His Apostles were at once 
instated in the full powxr of their respective offices, but 
were thereto advanced by several and correspondent 
degrees. 

Our Lord, in the first period of His official life, appears 
to have been limited in the exercise of His power, both 
in respect to His acts and to the sphere of His action. 
He preached, and gathered disciples whom He admitted 
to membership in His Church ; and He appointed min- 
isters to fulfil His will in the discharge of His mission, 
although these, of course, were restrained within limita- 
tions corresponding to His own. He confined His min- 
istrations entirely to the Jews, declaring that he was not 
sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. || In 
like manner the Apostles whom He appointed in this 
stage of His ministry performed similar functions within 
the same range. They carried the Gospel of the King- 
dom to those to whom they were sent, being expressly 
restrained from ministering to Gentiles, or even in any 
city of the Samaritans ; ^ and they performed the func- 



*Acts XV. 28. f Acts viii. 14-17 ; xix. 1-6. 

X\ Cor. V. 4 (where "-My Spirit" seems to be equivalent to 
"the Spirit which I have received from Christ." Cf. St. John xx. 
22, 23). § St. John xiv. 16, 17, 26. 

I St. Matt. XV. 24. ^ St. Matt. x. 5-7. 



POWERS OF MINISTRY. 65 

tion of baptism, acting for their Master. That baptism 
was used at this early period of the Christian organization, 
and, presumably, with the same general purpose, if not 
in the same form, as provided in the parting commission 
of our Lord (St. Matt, xxviii. 19, 20), appears from 
the distinct statement of St. John, that Jesus and His 
Disciples coming into the land of Judaea tarried there and 
baptized, * John also at the same time baptizing in 
^non ; and that this function of the ministry was at this 
period exercised by the Apostles, as well as by our Lord 
Himself, appeaxs from the further statement that Jesus 
continued to baptize : " Though Jesus Himself baptized 
not, but His Disciples." f Whether the Apostles them- 
selves were baptized by our Lord, or, like our Lord Him- 
self, by the Baptist, are questions which it is easier to ask 
than to answer from the Scriptures. So far as the record 
is concerned, there appears to be no evidence by which 
they may be settled. The continuance of John's baptism 
after the beginning of that of our Lord, and the fact that 
certain of the Apostles had been among the disciples of 
John, make it possible that they were by him baptized. 
On the other hand, the preparatory nature of John's 
work, and the fact that at a later period some who had 
already received John's baptism were required to receive 
the Christian baptism, J; certainly strengthen the pre- 
cedent probability that Jesus, as the Founder of the 
Christian kingdom, instituting a baptism of His own, 
would subject to it all who desired to become His 
followers, and especially those whom He appointed as 



* St. John iii. 22. 

f St. John iv. 1-4. Cf. St. Paul's statement that Christ sent him 
not to baptize; i.e., not generally, as he was chiefly engrossed in 
higher functions, (i Cor. i, 12-17.) | Acts xix. 1-6. 

5 



66 ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. 

His subordinate officers in that kingdom. However this 
point may be determined — which is perhaps of greater 
interest than importance, in view of the constraining 
probability — it is evident that at this stage of their 
progress the Apostles had been admitted by our Lord 
to such a share of the power exercised by Himself, within 
the circuit of a limited jurisdiction, as authorized them 
to preach and baptize. 

At a later period, toward the close of our Lord's 
earthly ministry, we find a change of very great impor- 
tance, affecting His own power and mission, and, pro- 
portionably, the power and mission of the Apostles. 
Jesus, returning in triumph from the grave, declares 
Himself, in contrast with His former position, endued 
with all power in heaven and in earth, and accordingly 
extends the mission of His Apostles throughout the 
world, and even unto the end of the world.* Thus 
we find the Apostles admitted to such a share of the 
power of our Lord as authorized them to preach and 
baptize within the circuit of His now unlimited juris- 
diction. And further extension of their authority we 
find at this stage, correspondent with the enlargement 
of the authority of their Master, and such as reaches 
beyond the range of a functional duty, out into the 
higher and larger scope of rule and government involv- 
ing oversight and direction. This authority may be 
inferred partly from the language of the commission 
contained in the text referred to, to teach all things 
whatsoever had been commanded them; \ partly from the 
bestowal upon them within this period of the power of 
binding and loosing, a distinct power of government ; \ 



*St. Matt, xxviii. 19, 20. f Acts, i. i. % St. John, xx. 21-23. 



POWERS OF MINISTRY. 67 

and partly from the relation in which they had all along 
stood to our Lord, as those who were appointed to 
succeed Him in the outward ministrations which per- 
tained to His kingly office. In one sense, indeed, our 
Lord has no successor, in that, being not like earthly 
kings subject to mortality. He abideth ever in the Head- 
ship of His Divine kingdom ; and, in another sense, our 
Lord's proper successor in the ministration of this king- 
dom is the Holy Spirit, the true Vicar of Christ on 
earth ; but, yet, in still another sense, the succession to 
Christ of an outward and visible Ministry is manifest in 
the Apostles, whose authority in regard to the order and 
conduct of His Church, and the extension and perpetua- 
tion of the faith of His Gospel, was such as to put them, 
in all outward relations with His people, in the same 
place which He had held while on earth, and must have 
continued to hold had He remained on earth : which 
appears to have been what was meant by His appointing 
unto them a kingdom, as His Father had appointed unto 
Him.* 

In these two periods of the official life of the Apostles 
there seems to be no difficulty in tracing not only a 
parallel between similar periods in the life of our Lord, 
but also a parallel in those two orders of the Christian 
Ministry which the Church afterward designated as the 
Diaconate and the Episcopate : the one a degree of 
preparation and training, at the same time involving 
ordinarily the functions of preaching and baptizing, as 
well as others ; the other involving the full possession of 
the ordinary official authority of the Apostles for the 
exercise of all the power conferred upon the Ministry in 



* St. Luke, xxii. 29, 30. 



68 ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. 

its relation to the people, and the additional power of 
perpetuating that Ministry. 

But the parallel would lack a most important signifi- 
cance if it furnished no counterpart to the order of 
Priesthood, which, in the history of the Church, has been 
always intermediate between the Diaconate and the Epis- 
copate ; and if the Church has been right in assuming 
that the work of the Apostolic ministry of Christ's institu- 
tion necessarily involved the provision of a priestly order 
for the full accomplishment of the object of that min- 
istry, it would seem to be at least probable that we should 
find something correspondent to this function in the pro- 
vision of Christ Himself. And the expectation is fully 
realized in the commission given by our Lord to His 
Apostles, on the night in which He was betrayed, to 
commemorate and represent the sacrifice which, in the 
use of bread and wine at the Paschal Supper, He then 
made of Himself. That this action of our Lord was 
properly sacrificial, is indicated (i) by the conformity of 
it to the precedent type of the Passover which He was 
then fulfilling, as " the Lamb slain from the foundation 
of the world," and prefigured by the Mosaic sacrifice ; 
(2) by the terms of the time present which He uses in 
the performance of the action, saying : " My body which 
is given for you ; My blood which is shed for you ; " * 
and (3) by the voluntary character which He Himself 
attributed to the devotion of His life to that end for 
which He had assumed it, saying : '•'■ I lay down my life, 
that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, 
but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it 
down, and I have power to take it again " \ — all the 



* St. Luke, xxii. 19, 20. f St. John, x. 17, 18. 



POWERS OF MINISTRY. 69 

subsequent proceedings resulting in His death upon the 
Cross having been involuntary, and by the violence of 
others, which He passively endured.* And since the 
Apostles in that action received His commission to do in 
commemoration of Him those acts which He then did, if 
His action was sacrificial, that function which He then 
committed to them was also sacrificial, and by the. like 
necessity implies the reception by them of the power to 
execute the priestly office. 

It is true, indeed, that in regard to the evidence of our 
Lord's advancement to the priestly office, there appears 
something wanting in order to the perfection of this 
parallel, forasmuch as there can be no passage adduced 
which expressly points out the time of any such advance- 
ment prior to this apparent exercise of the priestly func- 
tion, whereas the study of the passages relating to our 
Lord's consecration as a priest seems to make evident the 
conclusion that this was not accomplished until a later 
day. So that unless we will grant what, as Dean Jackson 
remarks, " many modern divines out of incogitancy have 
taught, or taken upon trust without further examination, 
to wit, that the eternal Son of God, our Lord and 
Saviour, was a high priest from eternity, or a high priest 
from His birth as man, or from His baptism, when 
He was anointed by the Holy Ghost unto His prophet- 
ical function," f we appear to be inconsistent in claiming 
for our Lord the priestly character at the time of the 
oblation at the Paschal Supper ; and the inconsistency 
would be equally apparent if we referred the sacrifice of 



* Bishop Seabury's sermon on the Eucharist should be read in 
this connection : "Discourses," vol. i. 
f Jackson's Works, vol. xii. p. 214. 



70 ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. 

Christ not to this oblation, but to His actual crucifixion, 
as probably Jackson would do. 

" The sacrifice of the Son of God upon the Cross," he 
observes, . . . '' was the absolute accomphshment 
of all legal sacrifices or services Aaronical. And yet but 
an intermediate (though an especial) part of His conse- 
cration to the priesthood after the order of Melchisedec, 
not the ultimum esse, or accomplishment of it : it was not 
terminated till the day of His resurrection from the 
dead ; . . . and from this day, and not before, doth 
His endless, everlasting priesthood commence. And 
being thus actually consecrated * by His resurrection 
from the dead — that is, made both Lord and Christ — 
He is become the author of everlasting salvation." f 

In like manner the learned Outram, maintaining that 
there are three things required to constitute a priest ab- 
solutely perfect : (i) sufficient authority and favor with 
God to render Him propitious ; (2) sufficient kindness and 
mercy toward men ; (3) an immortal life to be capable 
of the perpetual performance of his function ; and apply- 
ing these requirements to our Lord (Heb. v. i, 2 ; ii. 17 ; 
vii. 24-28), attributes His consecration, or being made 
perfect [rsXeiojdsl^), to His resurrection : "Whence we 
conclude that it was on his resurrection from the dead to 
an immortal life that the Son of God was fully conse- 
crated to the perpetual priesthood." J 

Yet, although this be true, it by no means excludes the 
exercise of any priestly power by our Lord before the 
completion or accomplishment of His consecration by 
His resurrection, which to hold would be to exclude His 
own sacrifice of Himself whensoever actually made. We 



* reXsiGoOeii, Heb. v. 9. f Jackson, iit sup., p. 215. 

X Outram : "On Sacrifices," Diss. II. C. I. iv. 



POWERS OF MINISTRY. 7 1 

are, therefore, obliged to conclude that our Lord did, by 
an anticipation of the fulness of His power, perform that 
which belonged to it at the time when that performance 
was essentially necessary, i.e.^ before His death. And 
the apparent difficulty is removed by the reflection that 
His consecration w^as a process rather than a single act, 
so that what was completed or accomplished in His 
resurrection was in fact in the course of accomplishment 
before — certainly as long before as when in the discourse 
at the Last Supper He said : " ^y(^ ayia^co e/uavrov " 
("I sanctify myself") ; and prayed for His xA-postles : 
" otyiaGov avTov<^ " {^'■sanctify them "). For, as Jackson 
well puts it in answer to a proposed dilemm.a in a Jewish 
argument : " Betwixt a priest complete, or actually conse- 
crated, and no priest at all {datur medium par ticipationis), 
there is a mean or third estate or condition ; to wit, a 
priest in fiei-i^ though not in facto, or a priest inter conse- 
crandui7i, that is, in the interims of his consecration, 
before he be actually and completely consecrated. Such 
a man, or, rather, such a priest, was Aaron during the first 
six or seven days of his consecration, yet dare no Jew 
avouch that after the first or second day of his separa- 
tion from common men he w^as no more than an ordinary 
man, no priest at all, nor that on the seventh day he was 
a priest actually consecrated, but as yet in his consecra- 
tion. He was not till the eighth day qualified to offer up 
sacrifices unto God, but had peculiar sacrifices offered for 
his consecration by IVIoses : " "^ which sacrifices attendant 
upon consecration, as they could not in the consecration 
of Christ be offered by any man (no man being thereunto 
empowered), must needs be offered by the Christ as a 



* Jackson ut supr., xii. p. 214. 



72 ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. 

part of the Divinely appointed process whereby He sanc- 
tified Himself. 

And the same conclusion is applicable to the acts of 
our Lord in exercising and collating (in any respect) 
upon His Apostles an authority which belonged to Him 
in perfection upon His Ascension. At this time He 
attains the fulness of His royal power, and receives "gifts 
for men." Yet He declares of Himself upon His res- 
urrection, that " all power is given unto Him in heaven 
and in earth," and before His Ascension He confers the 
fullest authority upon His Apostles, manifestly by way 
of anticipation, and because then, during the time of His 
earthly intercourse with them, was the proper time 
to confer such authority, making the commission de- 
pendent for its fulfilment upon the power with which, 
after His Ascension, they should be endued from on 
high. 

The institution then, by Divine appointment, of a 
visible Ministry to continue in the Church of Christ's 
foundation the exercise of those functions which were 
included in His office, and which w^ere needful for the 
Church as well after as before the departure of Christ ; 
and the general conformity of the functions of this 
Apostolic Ministry both to those of the ministry of Christ 
out of which it grew, and to those which, in accordance 
with Apostolic arrangement, the Ministry of the Church 
subsequently exercised, appear to be sufficiently plain.* 
That the powers exercised personally by Christ, and by 
the Apostles acquired from His personal commission, 
should have been fully attained by several degrees, and 
that the Apostles in their arrangement of a permanent 

* Cf. Arch Bishop Potter's " Discourse of Church Government," 
ch. ii., iii. 



POWERS OF MINISTRY. 73 

order for the Church should have made provision for the 
distribution of the powers attendant upon these several 
degrees into several grades or departments of ministerial 
duty, attaining the same end in a different way, is only 
what one might expect to observe in comparing a forma- 
tive period like that of our Lord and His Apostles with 
the settled order pertaining to the Church fully estab- 
lished. By degrees our Lord certainly attained to the 
fulness of His official power ; by like degrees He cer- 
tainly advanced His Apostles to the fulness of Apostolic 
authority, and from them came that distribution which 
involved, ordinarily, the same process of preparation and 
advancement by degrees of each individual who should 
attain to the fulness of ministerial authority in the 
Church ; the powers lodged by Christ in the Apostolic 
or Episcopal office having been by the first holders of 
that office under the guidance of the Holy Spirit retained 
in fulness in their own order, and in measure and degree 
imparted to two orders of the Ministry inferior to their 
own. 

The distribution of these powers, however, appears to 
be not a strict and exact division of the three kinds of 
power between the three offices of Bishop, Priest, and 
Deacon, so that to the first order should pertain the 
royal, to the second order the priestly, and to the third 
the prophetic, although in a general way it is to be said 
that there is a correspondence between the three orders 
and the three kinds of power. But it rather appears that 
the powers which Christ bestowed upon the Apostolic 
office correspondent to His own have been diffused 
amongst the three orders, each one having special func- 
tions, yet each in a manner sharing the powers of the 
others — even the Deacon not being wholly excluded 



74 ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. 

from participation in the power of government, nor the 
Priest from the power of prophecy, but the entirety 
of the threefold power pertaining only to the Episco- 
pate. 

This distribution of powers of different kinds through- 
out the three orders makes it permissible, as indeed it is 
sometimes unavoidable, to speak of the ministry, the 
priesthood, the government, which Christ has established 
in His Church. But to say that there is one ministry, 
priesthood, and government, is not the same as to say that 
there is but one order ; for the distribution of power into 
three distinct offices involves the distinction of order, so 
that these three distinct offices are three distinct orders. 

To say that only one kind of power constitutes the 
power of order, is to attach to the word " order" a purely 
technical signification, and to impose upon it a limitation 
contrary to the fundamental principles of the Divine 
constitution of the ministry, and unknown in the language 
of the primitive Church. 

The principle that the power of the priesthood, being 
that to which the second order is admitted, is the only 
power of order, involves the consequence that the Bishops 
possess no greater power, as power of order, than the 
Priests. And if this principle be taken in connection 
with the principle of the indelibility of order, it results 
that the Priests alone have by their ordination an indelible 
character, while the Bishops, in respect to the added powers 
of the Episcopate, have no such immunity. This is prac- 
tically to make only one order essential and permanent (the 
Deacon being easily regarded as a mere aid to the Priest), 
and to leave other orders unessential and mutable ; and 
it is not difficult to observe the process by which this 
error, the fruit of a scholastic fancy, has helped to build 



POWERS OF MINISTRY. 75 

up the equally false, though antagonistic, systems of the 
Papacy* and Presbyterianism. 

The added Episcopal power being called jurisdiction, 
and the Pope being regarded as the fountain of all juris- 
diction, and the power of jurisdiction being not a part 
of the indelible power of order, the power of the Pope 
over the Bishops becomes despotic, they being merely Tiis 
creatures and dependents. And the idea that there is no 
distinction of order between Priests and Bishops, being 
so embedded as it w^as in the minds of men ,at the time 
of the Reformation, made the Presbyterian scheme plaus- 
ible after the supremacy of the Pope had been thrown 
off. There seemed, by and by, to some, to be no neces- 
sity for Bishops, supposing that all Priests had the whole 
power of order ; and as to jurisdiction, since it was easy 
to disprove the claim of the Pope to universal jurisdic- 
tion Juj-e Divino, they were content that the Priests 
should supply it for themselves, or that they should take 
it from the civil power. 

Great confusion has grown out of this misapprehen- 
sion. The difficulties are only cleared away, and the 



* Orders in the Church, according to the Roman teaching, are 
those of Porters, Readers, Exorcists, Acolytes, sub-Deacons, Dea- 
cons, and Priests. — " Catechism, Council of Trent," p. 216. 

The Order of Priesthood, they say, though essentially one, has 
different degrees of dignity and power, including, first, those who 
are simply Priests with the functions of consecration and absolution ; 
second, Bishops, called also Pontiffs, who are placed over their 
respective Sees to govern not only other ministers, but the faithful ; 
third, Archbishops ; fourth, Patriarchs ; fifth, the Sovereign Pontiff, 
the Pope, in whose person "the Catholic Church" recognizes the 
most exalted degree of dignity, and the full amplitude of jurisdic- 
tion, emanating from no human constitution, but from God Himself. 
—lb., 221, 222. 



76 ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. 

false principle held in common but variously perverted 
by Papists and Presbyterians is only corrected by the 
primitive idea of the supreme coordinate power of the 
Bishops as the only possessors of the full powers of min- 
istry, priesthood, and government in the Church, Presby- 
ters and Deacons being admitted to their several and 
limited shares thereof. 

The scholastic distinction between order and jurisdic- 
tion is not the primitive distinction between the power of 
order and the lawful right to use that power, but a fanci- 
ful distinction between the power of making the Corpus 
Christi verum and the power of ruling the Corpus Christi 
mysticum, the former being accounted the proper power 
of order, the latter only an addition or appendage to it. 

This distinction is well stated by the learned Dr. 
Nathaniel Marshall in his treatise on the ecclesiastical 
and civil powers, as will appear from the following con- 
densation of the first few sections of his work : 

The Bishops in the Council of Trent, of the Pope's 
then immediate creation, who had as his creatures their 
titles from his prerogative (many such titulars having 
been in that council), appeared very unwilling to declare 
in it for the Divine, immutable right of that order which 
they then laid claim to, sitting in the synod by virtue of 
it, because in so doing they would have given his universal 
monarchy and pastorship an irremediable disadvantage ; 
not only by setting up a monarch in each district inde- 
pendent on that one Pastor, but so far on a level with him 
also as to be equally immutable as to his own order and 
station in the Church. 

The Romish doctors made it their business to bring 
down the Episcopal order and level it with the Presby- 
terial, subjecting the whole power of the priesthood 



POWERS OF MINISTRY. 77 

alike in each ; and the same authority and office that 
they allow the Bishop to have and execute by his priestly 
order as a Sacrament, which is to make the Coj-pus 
Christi verum, or tf-afisubstanttate, is seated b}' them in 
the Presbyter as a Sacrament. And that power and 
office which the Bishop hath besides, and the Presbyter 
hath not, to wit, in the government of the Corpus Christi 
mysHcujn, i.e., of Christ's mystical Body, the Church, is 
not from the Sacrament of Order, but subordinate to it. 
And as the order, so the power being common to each, 
what is that that is left which the Presbyter may not do 
also by virtue of his order of Priesthood ? And having 
found out this device, the Schoolmen's novel doctrine, 
which equalizes the Presbyter with the Bishop, was then, 
and is at this day, received with greater plausibility 
among the Papal dependents ; and it is generally dis- 
puted and maintained by them that the Bishop receives 
no power nor character of order as a Sacrament, by his 
consecration, which he did not receive when he was 
ordained a Presbyter, 

The case being thus stated and received by the 
Schoolmen, the Bishop's power of order, as such, fixes in 
him no immutable station, whereas his power of order as 
a Presbyter does, and in this respect the Bishop and 
the Presbyter are by them reputed equal. It is on this 
bottom that Rome's universal Pastorship and supremacy 
treads on the necks of the Bishops of Christendom at its 
pleasure ; constitutes, deprives, and suspends them at its 
discretion (whereas the Presbyter's power of orders can- 
not be taken away from him) ; vests with plenary dele- 
gations Archpresbyters in fixed dioceses, and makes his 
Presbyter Cardinals, nay, Deacon Cardinals, his legates a 
latere, and the Bishops stand by as ciphers there ; nay. 



7S ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. 

more insignificant, and as such are qualified for no one 
clerical, hierarchical action which is not communicable 
to, and actually collated on, those two orders of Presby- 
ters and Deacons by Papal delegations.* 

But to take a further view of the Schoolmen's, and, it 
may be added, Canonist's, scheme. What though the 
Presbyter hath the same power to transubstantiate which 
the Bishop hath ? Since the Roman advocates own that, 
besides that order in which the Presbyter is equal with 
him, the Diocesan Bishop has an order (as they some- 
times speak) in respect of Christ's mystical Body, apart 
from the order which he receives by virtue of the priest- 
hood, why may not the Bishop receive that qualifying 
power by an immutable. Divine, and indefeasible right ? 
Surely he may do it on as good grounds as the Pope may 
receive his pretended universal Pastorship by Divine and 
immutable right, which is not alleged to be received by 
virtue of the power of the priesthood in the Sacrament of 
Order. Why may not the power over the mystical Body 
be the Bishop's peculium ? Why may he not be supe- 
rior herein, and execute it on the Presbyter, though the 
Presbyter can transubstantiate ? How, otherwise, comes 
the Pope to be (we say not the Bishop's, but) the Pres- 
byter's, superior, since the Pope has not more right than 
either of these over the Corpus Christi veru??i ? His 
Holiness pleads a superior power to the potestas ordinis, 
as they speak, i.e., to the power of transubstantiating, by 
which he was made supreme and universal Rector of the 
Christian world. And why may not the single Bishop 
plead \\\?, potestatem Jurisdictionis as an indefeasible right, 

* That these considerations are not wholly antiquated and obso- 
lete, may perhaps be inferred from the recent experiences of certain 
Roman prelates in this country. 



POWERS OF MINISTRY. 79 

over and above the power which he, as well as the Pope, 
received with his Presbyter's ordination ? 

And there are some even among ourselves who do not 
assert the Pope's supretnacy nor the Presbyter's transub- 
stantiati?7g power, but professedly oppose each of them ; 
and yet they plough with the Pope's heifer, in making 
use of his parasites and sworn defenders, the Canonists 
and Schoolmen, thereby to recommend to mankind the 
parity of the Presbyters and Bishops. And as that 
power which the Bishop has undeniably been found to 
be vested with, beyond the Presbyter, is alienable by the 
Pope, as his adherents say, so is it alienable by the Pres- 
bytery and secular hand, as our now moderate Episco- 
parians teach. And is it not very odd, when we find Dr. 
Field, to name no more at present, in his third and fifth 
books Of The Church, to produce no less than seven of 
the Schoolmen in justification of the Bishops' and Pres- 
byters' equality by their orders, and the mutability of 
Episcopacy, which these Romanists had started and car- 
ried on, by wire drawings and drilling arguments, there- 
with to support the Pope's supremacy ? Surely Dr. 
Field and his company did not consider that whatever 
authority the Schoolmen have, their argument does alike 
conduce to the setting up of the Pope's, as to the pulling 
down of the Bishop's, superiority. And if Dr. Field's 
platform of hierarchy holds, and the secular magistrate's 
fixing one Presbyter over others in a diocese gives him a 
superiority of government over them, nothing needs be 
more plain than that the Bishop's continuance in his Pre- 
lated station is solely at the will of the Prince. 



8o ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY, 



PROPOSITION XII. 

As the Church, although one from the beginning, has existed 
under several dispensations, so the Ministry of Divine 
appointment has been of several forms. 

In the history of the form of Church government, as 
shown by the Divine constitution of the Ministry, there 
are three divisions, corresponding with the Patriarchal, 
Mosaic, and Christian dispensations. 

T. In the Patriarchal dispensation, men exercised the 
ministry as a function of the headship of the family : 
the succession being by inheritance, ordinarily in the 
line of the eldest son. 

The evidence derived from comparative jurisprudence, 
says Professor Dwight in his introduction to Sir Henry 
Maine's treatise on " Ancient Law," " establishes that view 
of the race which is known as the Patriarchal Theory. 
This theory is based on the Scriptural history of the 
Hebrew Patriarchs. All known societies were originally 
organized on this model. The eldest male parent is 
absolutely supreme in his household. His dominion 
extends to life and death, and is as unqualified over his 
children as over his slaves. . . , When society came 
to be formed, it was not, as now, a collection of indi- 
viduals, but an aggregation of families. The unit of 
an ancient society was the family."* And Sir Henry 
Maine observes that in early law, and amid the rudiments 
of political thought, symptoms of the belief of a Divine 
influence underlying and supporting every relation of 



FORM OF MINISTRY. 8 1 

life, and every social institution, meet us on all sides. 
*' A supernatural presidency is supposed to consecrate 
and keep together all the cardinal institutions of those 
times, the State, the Race, and the Family. These 
grouped together in the different relations which those 
institutions imply, are bound to celebrate periodically 
common rites, and to offer common sacrifices. . . . 
Everybody acquainted with ordinary classical literature 
will remember the sacra gentilicia, which exercised so 
important an influence ' on the early Roman law of 
adoption and of wills. And to this hour the Hindoo 
Customary Law, in which some of the most curious 
features of primitive society are stereotyped, makes 
almost all the rights of persons, and all the rules of 
succession, hinge on the due solemnization of fixed 
ceremonies at the dead man's funeral ; that is, at every 
point where a breach occurs in the continuity of the 
family." * 

To the same effect Dean Jackson long ago remarked 
that "the regal power, which in process of time did 
spread itself over whole nations and countries, had its first 
root from that power which the fathers of families had 
over their children, their grandchildren, and their pos- 
terity ; which power did extend itself much farther in 
ancient times than now it can, because the age of man 
was much longer, and mankind did multiply much faster 
than now it doth. As the subordination of divers persons 
to their father, or first progenitor (as to one head), did 
make one tribe or family, so the subordination or subjec- 
tion of divers tribes or families to one chief did make a 
kingdom. . , . For this reason the government royal 



82 ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. 

is, of all other kinds, the most agreeable to nature, as 
taking its original most immediately from the course of 
nature. Howbeit it cannot be denied but that in process 
of time, or continuation of descents from ofie prime or 
famous progenitor worthy to govern all his progeny whilst 
he lived, there usually arose more several collateral fami- 
lies, which did grow nearer to a parity between themselves 
than any of them had in comparison of their first founder, 
or progenitor, or than had been between such as first 
descended from him ; so that no one of them was held 
fit to bear rule or sovereignty over the rest, but all were 
well fitted for a social league or confederacy. And from 
this root of nature did spring aristocracy, or the form of 
government by peers and nobles. And this kind of gov- 
ernment, as also the popular government, may be con- 
tinued either by inheritance or right of descent, or by an- 
nual magistrate or magistrates chosen for term of life." * 
These citations are made not, of course, in proof of 
the proposition that the ministry in the Patriarchal dis- 
pensation was a function of the headship of the family, 
but because of the graphic and suggestive outline which 
they present of the development of the social order from 
the original institution of the government of the family, 
and because they naturally suggest the inference that in 
a government of this sort, not only involving all func- 
tions necessary for the benefit of those who were subject 
to it, but also resting upon the conviction of the Divine 
authority of its establishment, and presupposing the 
necessity of the conformity of its rule to the Divine 
will so far as it was known, and of so propitiating the 
Divine Being as to dispose Him to a favorable regard, 



* Works of Thos. Jackson, Book XII. ch. vii. § 5. 



FORM OF MINISTRY. 83 

there would, as a matter of course, be exercised by the 
head of the family a function of a priestly character 
in the way of mediation and intercession, as well of 
benediction, instruction, and training in the fear of God 
and in the knowledge of His religion. 

In other words, it is reasonable to suppose that the 
" Supernatural Presidency " to which Sir Henry Maine 
refers, would find its exponent, in these primitive times, 
in the head of the family, who, as he was the chief ruler 
in all matters of civil and temporal concern, would also 
be the chief priest in all matters of religious and spiritual 
concern. 

Agreeable to this is the evidence furnished by the 
Scriptures, of early instances of Divine worship, by heads 
of families, in the priestly way, on behalf of themselves 
and others, and of benediction as well as of interces- 
sion.* 

The priestly character of Melchizedek, King of Salem, 
whether we accept the view that bread and wine were 
brought forth by him for the purpose of a typical sacri- 
fice, or the view that they were presented merely for 
refreshment, is evident from his benediction of Abram, 
and from the tithes which he received from him,f as well 
as from the fact that the Scriptures attribute to our Lord 
a piriesthood after his order.J; And if we understand 

* The learned Dr. Outram, in his valuable treatise on " Sacrifices" 
(1677), though holding that it was the custom of the remotest an- 
tiquity for every individual to act as his own priest — instancing the 
sacrifices of Cain and Abel — yet adds : " In the sacrifices designed 
for every family, there can be no doubt that the father of the family 
was entitled to officiate as its priest ; and in the exercise of this 
right, Noah and Job offered sacrifices for themselves and their re- 
spective families." — Diss. I. C. IV. iii. 

f Gen. xiv. 18-21. % Heb. vi. 20; vii. 



84 ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. 

Melchizedek to have been, as is most probable, no other 
than Shem, the eldest son of Noah, the association of 
the priestly character with this long-surviving chief of 
the Patriarchs, to whom even the Patriarch Abraham 
recognized his allegiance, is certainly the more signifi- 
cant.* The first action of Noah, the undoubted head 
of all the rescued remnant of the human race, after his 
release from the Ark, is to build an altar and offer burnt 
offerings thereon, accepted by God as an offering of a 
sweet savor, and of so propitiatory a character as to be 
followed by the Divine covenant of mercy and provi- 
dential care for mankind while the earth should remain.f 
And of Noah before the flood, St. Peter speaks as " the 
eighth person^ a preacher of righteousness ; " \ or, omit- 
ting the words italicized, as inserted by the translator, 
" the eighth preacher of righteousness ; " i.e., not numeri- 
cally the eighth person since the Creation, but the eighth 
in the direct line of primogeniture in the Patriarchal 
descent exercising the function which belonged to his 
office, of preaching righteousness, or proclaiming and 
making known the will of God, § the line being counted 

* " The fitness (of the calling of Melchizedek to represent the 
everlasting Priesthood) will more easily be apprehended if we sup- 
pose what the ancient Jews (whose traditions, where they are no 
parties, are in no wise to be rejected) take as granted, viz., that he 
whom Moses (Gen. xiv.) calls Melchizedek, was Shem the Great, 
the son of Noah. ... I dare not obtrude this tradition . . . 
as a point of our belief, yet the matter of it is as probable as any 
doctrine whatsoever, that is grounded only upon the analogy of the 
faith, not upon express testimonies of Scripture, or conclusions de- 
duced from such testimonies by demonstrative consequence. The 
allegations for this opinion, were they exactly calculated or put 
together, amount so high, as no assertion contained within the 
sphere of probability can overtop them." — Jackson. Works, vol. xii. 
pp. 233, 224. f Gen. viii. 20-23. X 2 St. Pet. ii. 5. § Gen. v. 



FORM OF MINISTRY. 85 

from Enos, the firstborn of Seth, presumably because in 
his time men began to be called by the name of the 
Lord ; * that is to say, because in his time the Patri- 
archal Church began to be recognized as distinct from 
the apostate descendants of Cain, and its members to be 
called the sons of God as distinguished from the chil- 
dren of men. f The Patriarch Job, in the time of his 
prosperity, when his sons had their alternate feasts in 
their own houses, was wont to rise up early in the morn- 
ing and offer burnt offerings according to the number of 
them all ; for Job said, " It may be that my sons have 
sinned, and cursed God in their hearts. Thus did Job 
continually." \ And after his day of affliction was passed, 
God sends the three friends, who had misrepresented 
Him, to Job, whose prayers of intercession in con- 
nection with their burnt offerings He affirms that He 
will accept. § Similarly, Abimelech is directed to avail 
himself of the intercessions of the Patriarch Abraham, || 
who is here called a prophet. And Jethro, the father-in- 
law of Moses, " the priest of Midian," acknowledging 
the Lord to be greater than all gods, offers a burnt 
offering and sacrifices, in which act of religious worship 
Moses, Aaron, and the Elders of Israel participate, com- 
ing to eat" bread with Moses' father-in-law before God. ^ 
The value of this privilege in the Patriarchal times, as 
connected with the right of primogeniture, may be esti- 
mated from the magnitude of the fault of Esau in de- 
spising his birthright, since it was not only an abdication 
of his right of rule, but also of his function of priest- 
hood, and so directly disrespectful to God.** 



* Gen. iv. 26. Margin. f Gen. vi. i, 2. % Job i. 4, 5. 

§ Job, xlii. 7-9. II Gen. xx. 7. *[[ Ex. xviii. 1-12. 

**Gen. XXV. 29-34 ; Heb. xii. 16, 17. 



S6 



ECCLESIA STIC A L POLIT V. 



2. Under the Mosaic dispensation the succession to 
the Ministry was by inheritance limited to the family of 
Levi. 

This Ministry was of divers orders, and exercised, with 
re :pect to a Church comprising numerous families, powers 
of the same general kind as essentially belong to Christ 
iu His mediatorial kingdom ; but these powers in this 
Ministry were, like other institutions in that dispensation, 
typical or representative of the powers which were to be 
manifested in Christ in the fulness of the time appointed. 

The Priesthood was in the family of Levi. Aaron was 
the High Priest, and his descendants in the line of the 
firstborn were ordinarily his successors in that office. 
The other descendants of Aaron were priests. The other 
descendants of Levi were Levites ; i.e., the descendants 
of Levi through Cohath, Gershom, and Merari were 
Levites, excepting the line of Cohath through Amram, 
the father of Moses and Aaron. 

Levi 

I 



Cohath 

I 



I I I I 

Amram Izhar Hebron Uzziel 



Cohathites 



Gershom 



Gershomites 

I 



Merari 



Merarites 



Levites 



Aaron Moses 

(High Priest) (Prophet of extraordinary ministry) 



Eldest sons High Priests 



Other male descendants Priests 



FORM OF MINISTRY. §7 

This Priesthood came by descent and was indefeasible ; 
but the persons inheriting it did not as a matter of course 
exercise its functions, but were admitted to that exercise 
at a certain age and in a formal manner : in the case of 
the High Priest and Levites, by sacrifices as well as other 
ceremonies ; in the case of the priests, by prayer and 
benediction without sacrifice.* 

Exceptional cases occur in this period not affecting 
the polity of the Church ; e.g., the Prophets, not neces- 
sarily of the tribe of Levi, and yet exercising some or all 
of the functions of the Ministry. Their undoubted 
authority is no precedent for irregular ministrations in 
the Church of Christ. They had an especial and ex- 
traordinary Divine commission, and gave supernatural 
evidence of it by miracles. 

3. Under the Christian dispensation the succession to 
the Ministry is by selection and appointment of individ- 
uals without regard to inheritance : a succession com- 
municated from Christ through the Apostles by the gift 
of the Holy Ghost, in connection with an external 
individual call given by those who have themselves 
received it. 



* Cf. Lewis's " Antiquities of the Hebrew Republic," Book II, 
chap. i. Andrewes's summary view of the government of the Old 
and New Testament, in his " Pattern of Catechistical Doctrine," 
Works, A. C. L. 



83 ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. 



PROPOSITION XIII. 

In view of His departure from the earth, Christ established 
in the Church a chief office on terms of permanence, and 
promised and gave to those who first held the office the 
especial aid and guidance of the Holy Spirit in the dis- 
charge of its duties. 

This proposition includes two others : 

1. That Christ established a permanent chief office. 

2. That the first holders of that ofiice were empowered 
and directed by the Holy Spirit. 

I. It results from different conceptions of the nature 
of the Church, that there should be varying views of the 
constitution of the Ministry. If it be understood that 
the Church consists only of an indistinguishable mul- 
titude, who by their personal faith have individually 
attached themselves with heart and mind to Christ, it 
will be natural to expect that the organization of the 
Church shall be regarded as a matter of conventional 
arrangement, and that every association of men con- 
scious to themselves of an individual union with Christ, 
should arrange a ministry for such purposes as the asso- 
ciation may require. If it be understood, on the other 
hand, that the Church is by Divine appointment, accord- 
ing to the will and disposition of its Founder, a compact 
and regular society, whose members are united with Him 
through their membership in His society, it will be 
natural to expect that the same design which constituted 
the society will have constituted an order of government 
for it. It is antecedently possible, of course, that Christ 
could have lived and taught among men as one who 
came merely to present and explain a new philosophy of 



PERMANENT CHIEF OFFICE. «9 

life, and that He might have left His followers to their 
own choice as to the manner in which they should 
individually or collectively apply His teaching. Christ 
might have been, like Socrates or Plato, the expounder 
of ideas, the founder of a school of thought ; and man- 
kind might, doubtless, have been much profited by the 
mental digestion of His profound wisdom, and by the 
endeavor to approximate their lives to the pattern of 
His pure morality. But it is also antecedently improb- 
able that such a design on His part would have led Him 
to do what the evidence shows that He did do — that He 
should have made any provision for the association of 
His followers ; that He should have appointed any Min- 
istry; that He should have instituted any outward observ- 
ances — much less that He should have connected those 
outward observances with the grace of a spiritual in- 
fluence which reached beyond the range of mental and 
moral operations even to the extent of an indwelling of 
Christ within the disciple, and the accomplishment of his 
vital union with Christ, wrought by the new birth of 
water and the Spirit, and maintained by the nourishment 
of the Body and Blood of Christ. What philosopher 
ever went beyond the sphere of reason and will, and the 
influence through these upon the moral action of men, 
and provided for the re-creation of his followers, and the 
engrafting of them into a new state of being, in which 
he should dwell in them and they in him ? Or, not 
content with furnishing principles suited to a better and 
happier life in this world, provided further for the life 
eternal through the participation of his flesh and blood ? * 

* " Such language" (I am the Life of the world, . . . the 
Living Bread ; . . . except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man, 
etc.) " cannot be understood to signify a merely moral union between 



9° ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. 

Certainly, if we accept the Gospel record of the life of 
Christ, and the record of the subsequent Apostolic teach- 
ing, we are confronted with the twofold purpose of Christ 
to establish between Himself and His followers a spiritual 
unity and an external social or moral union. The evi- 
dence of the fact of spiritual unity with Christ, in which 
the disciples are in Him as the branches are in the vine ; 
in which He is in them as the Father is in Him ; m which 
they are born of the Spirit and nourished unto life 



Christ and His Church ; for what sense allows, what usage requires, 
that any intensity of love or reverence for a person can be expressed 
by the eating of that person ? . . . We must therefore understand 
such words to express not only a moral, but a natural union ; not 
only a consent of will and affection, but a communion of nature and 
essence, the element of which is the Holy Spirit, Who proceeds from 
the Father and the Son ; Who in them is life unoriginated, and in us 
is life communicated. . . . 

"The substantial reality of this union is further declared in the 
words in which our Lord instituted the holy sacrament of His Body 
and Blood. . . . We may suppose a feast instituted in memory 
of Franklin or Washington, or any sage or hero who has devoted 
his life to the good of his country and his kind. But who ever heard 
of the memory of any man being perpetuated by eating his body and 
drinking his blood ? What ignorance ever originated, what wisdom 
ever devised, what usage of language in any nation, barbarous or 
civilized, ever authorized such an expression to denote the com- 
memoration of human virtue ? Try the expression and consider it, 
and see if there be any possible sense in which the disciples of 
Socrates or Plato, or Luther or Bacon, can be said to eat the body 
and drink the blood of the man whom they respectively follow? 
And yet our Lord plainly, repeatedly, emphatically, offered Himself 
to be eaten and drunk by His Church ; and in our Liturgy we thank 
God that He has given us His Son to be our spiritual food and 
sustenance in this holy sacrament." — Discourses illustrative of the 
Nature and Work of the Hob' Spirit, by the late Rev. Dr. Samuel 
Seabury, p. 77 (1874). 



. PERMANENT CHIEF OFFICE. $1 

eternal by His Flesh and Blood through the quickening 
Spirit, is as plain as words can make it. And the 
evidence of the fact of His calling men to be His 
disciples ; of His association of water with the birth of 
Spirit, and of bread and wine with His Body and Blood ; 
of His appointment of a regular Ministry, and of His pro- 
vision for the continuance of that Ministry in the exercise 
of powers bestowed upon them, to be outwardly exercised 
until the world's end, is also as plain as words can make 
it. If the two facts of spiritual unity and external union 
thus evidenced to us were apparently inconsistent with 
each other, we should still be obliged, on the principles of 
reason, to accept each upon its own evidence ; we could 
not accept one and ignore the other. Much less are we 
justified in pursuing this course when the two facts are 
not at all inconsistent, but on the contrary complemen- 
tary — the one being obviously the means by which the 
other is accomplished. And if either of these facts is 
inconsistent with the assumption that Christ was merely 
the teacher of a philosophy which men were to absorb 
and assimilate according to their own pleasure, certainly 
both together are inconsistent with the idea that the true 
Church is an invisible abstraction, the concrete exponent 
of which is to be found only in voluntary associations. 
Yet, acting more or less consciously upon this idea, men 
have given expression to it by different theories of the 
commission to the Ministry, making it either to be 
derived from the authority of the congregation or body 
associated, conferred upon those who conceive them- 
selves to have been already called by the Spirit to the 
exercise of it, or from the inward consciousness of a 
direct call of the Spirit without the intervention of any 
external means whatever. 



92 ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. 

These theories, which may be called respectively the 
Congregational and the Independent, have prevailed ex- 
tensively among those who since the Reformation have 
separated themselves into voluntary associations under 
various names, expressive of particular tenets upon which 
they have thought it necessary to lay especial stress. 
And it is to be noted that they have prevailed the more 
extensively in proportion as men have been imbued with 
the idea that the only true Church is the Church Invisible, 
since they well accord — especially the former — with the 
idea that the Church Visible is a congeries of voluntary 
associations. 

There are, however, other objectionable theories which 
are hardly traceable to this conception of the Church, 
but, on the contrary, assume the Divine, or at least the 
Apostolic, origin of the Visible Church, although it seems 
in that view to be relegated to a sort of ancillary station, 
and to have a rather apologetic existence in view of the 
sufficiency of the Church Invisible to accomplish all the 
really needful ends of redemption. These theories may 
be called the Presbyterian and the Episcopal. They 
are largely due, as has been already intimated, to the 
scholastic influence which produced the opinion prevalent 
about the period of the Reformation, that the full power 
of order resided in the Priesthood, of which the Episco- 
pate was a branch or extension with additional powers of 
jurisdiction. But they both likewise assume the sub- 
Apostolic organization of the Church, and the establish- 
ment of the Ministry of the Church, either by a process 
of growth and development within the Church itself out 
of a fancied original equality, or at best the arrangement 
and settlement of a Ministry by the Apostles de 7iovo, and, 
as it were, in substitution for the Apostolic Ministry of 



PERMANENT CHIEF OFFICE. 93 

Christ's ordination. Much learned controversy has re- 
sulted upon the question whether the Apostles — suppos- 
ing them to have provided the Church with a Ministry — 
constituted that Ministry of three orders or of only two. 
The Presbyterian theory insists upon two, and what is here 
called the Episcopal theory insists upon three. In both 
cases the objection may fairly be made that the Ministry 
of Christ's institution ceases, and a new ministry of 
Apostolic institution begins ; and although we may assume 
that their possession of the Holy Spirit made the Apostles' 
institution practically a Divine institution, yet much is 
lost in the placing of the Episcopate upon this foundation 
instead of making it a continuance of the original institu- 
tion of Christ. The Apostolic Ministry of Christ vanishes. 
Another Ministry takes its place. And room is given for 
the argument that the Episcopate is rather a providential 
development than a directly Divine imposition ; rather a 
historic fact than a spiritual reality. No such weakness 
belongs to the position that the whole power of the Min- 
istry of the Church is inherent in the Apostolic office of 
Christ's institution, and that the Apostles, in accordance 
with their commission and acting under the guidance and 
direction of the Spirit, distributed the powers lodged in 
that office as occasion was given them in the enlargement 
of the Church, admitting two subordinate orders to their 
respective and limited shares thereof, and handing down 
their own office in its entirety to others whom they ad- 
mitted to succeed them in it — so that the development 
of the Christian Ministry was not a development from 
beneath upward, but from above downward. 

But before noting the evidence which appears to sus- 
tain this position, it will be well to refer briefly, by way 
of caution, to another theory, which is not indeed a 



94 ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY, 

theory of the Ministry, but such a theory of the Church 
as sensibly affects the estimate of the power and author- 
ity of the Ministry. The theory results not from regard- 
ing the true Church as Invisible, and the Visible Church 
as optional, but rather from a tendency to confuse the 
two — ignoring the essential distinction between the spir- 
itual unity of Christ with His members, and the external 
social union by which, through the operation of the Holy 
Spirit, He designed the accomplishment of that unity. 
Yet the distinction is one which, in the nature of things, 
is inherent in the sacramental idea which pervades the 
universe itself,* and notably the Divine dealing with man, 
and is surely not to be ignored in our conception of the 
Church. As the Twenty-eighth Article declares of tran- 
substantiation, that it overthroweth the nature of a sacra- 
ment, so a conception of the Church which identifies the 
unity with the union, making the Church Visible the 
same as that of which it was instituted to be the efficient 
cause, overthroweth the nature of that Church. And 
this mystical theory — for so, perhaps, without offence it 



* " Every structure stands upon a basement of some sort ; . , . 
the larger the edifice, the broader spread the courses of masonry be- 
low. "What shall be said of the sacramental system, whose maker 
and builder is God, which is ample enough to gather in the nations ; 
in whose successive stories, as they rise upward, room and place are 
provided for all people, tongues, and languages of the redeemed ? 
Must not such a structure as this have a foundation commensurate 
with its proportions and adequate to its design ? That is what I 
have already suggested for your consideration, alleging that a system 
so large and grand may be regarded as undoubtedly anchored some- 
where in the roots and bases of the universe itself." — The Sacra- 
mental System Considered as the Extension of the Incarnation 
(Paddock Lectures of 1892), by the Rev. Dr. Morgan Dix (the whole 
of which book the student should read). 



PERMANENT CHIEF OFFICE. 95 

may be called — regarding the Church as in such sense 
the Body of Christ as that it (not merely possesses in 
its sacramental system a means by which the extension 
of Christ's Incarnation is effectually and beneficially ac- 
complished — which is a just and elevating conception — 
but) in itself constitutes such extended Incarnation ; and 
reasoning from this premise, either toward the conclu- 
sion that the powers of the Ministry necessarily operate 
to produce their proper spiritual effects, thus attributing 
to the Divine grace the character of a natural or me- 
chanical force ; or else toward the conclusion that the 
Church is as a result of this Incarnation so identified 
with Christ that whatsoever it does or wills is the deed 
and will of Christ, may very justly be said, in its con- 
fusion of ends and results with means and processes, to 
overthrow the nature of the Church, and to obscure the 
view of its true constitution. For the Church of Christ 
is not a force ; nor is it Christ Himself. It is a society 
constituted by Him, with institutions and laws imposed 
by Him as its Head, requiring the voluntary obedience 
of its members ; distinguished from other societies by its 
Divine foundation, and the fact that it is made by its 
Divine Founder the custodian of a supernatural faith, 
and the vehicle or channel of a supernatural grace, but 
none the less a society, and none the less dealing with 
men after the manner of an external social union, involv- 
ing the concurrence and cooperation of the individual 
reason and will. Being so constituted it becomes the 
Body of Christ. But the society or body dignified by 
this title possesses it as a moral entity ; socially and not 
as a philosophical abstraction. Nor can such a body, 
however it be, in the intent of its institution, fitted to 
procure the unity of its members with Christ, ever be, as 



gS ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. 

such, in itself so the Body of Christ as to be the same 
Body in which He is incarnate ; nor, if such a thing were 
possible, could the part be the whole, or the Body of 
Christ the whole Christ, so that His Headship, rule, and 
sovereignty over it could be devolved upon it and sub- 
jected to its will ; or, which comes to the same thing, 
infallibly represented by its voice. The notion that the 
Church, being the Body of Christ, is so able to speak for 
Christ as that its voice shall be His voice, is, of all others 
that the wit of man has yet devised, at once the most 
fanciful, and the most destructive of the principles of 
the constitutional order of the Church. In this notion 
the Church so magnifies its office as to assume to become 
Christ Himself ; nor is this pretence to infallibility less 
objectionable than that of the Papacy, except that its 
utterance would be more difficult to ascertain and es- 
tablish. This difficulty, however, would be likely to be 
met by making the voice of each particular Church 
equivalent to the expression of the voice of the whole 
when that could not conveniently be had ; and as the 
notion assumes that all the powers of the Ministry are 
conferred upon them through the Church, which has first 
received them ; which involves the dangerous consequence 
that these powers may be resumed and re-distributed by 
the authority by which they were communicated, it seems 
that after all we have here nothing better than a hash of 
the principles of Congregationalism served in the gilded 
dish of reverence for the Church. 

But if it were the will of our Lord to establish His 
Church among men after the manner of a society or 
kingdom, of which He Himself is the perpetual Head, 
and to provide for the government of that society by 
communicating to a successive Ministry such measure of 



PERMANENT CHIEF OFFICE. 97 

that authority which belonged alone to His own office as 
was needful for the benefit of successive generations of 
His disciples, it would seem that such an arrangement 
would be altogether probable and natural, and such as 
would be consistent with the nature of the Church as the 
means of accomplishing the ends of redemption. 

That our Lord transmitted to the Apostles the authority 
which He administered on earth, appears to be involved 
in the relation in which the Apostles stood, as those who 
were manifestly in training for the due execution of a 
trust to be reposed in them after His departure ; as well 
as from particular texts, which have already been in 
part considered. 

It is recorded that after having by His preaching 
gathered disciples, and having by His miracles given them 
such evidence of His Divine authority as was needed to 
establish their faith in Him, our Lord went out into a 
mountain to pray, and continued all night in prayer to 
God. And when it was day He called His disciples ; 
and of them He chose twelve, whom also He named 
Apostles.* These Apostles, enumerated by name, are 
sometimes called "the twelve," sometimes " the twelve 
disciples," sometimes "the disciples," and "His disci- 
ples ; " but the distinction between them and the company 
of disciples is as plain as between that company and the 
multitude. Unto the twelve Apostles St. Luke relates 
that He said : " I appoint unto you a kingdom, as My 
Father hath appointed unto Me." f St. Mark says : 
" He ordained twelve, that they should be with Him, and 
that He might send them forth " \ — enumerating them. 
According to St. Matthew, who also enumerates them, 

* St. Luke, vi. 12-16. f St. Luke, xxii. 29-30. 

X St. Mark, iii. 13-19. 



98 ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. 

He gives them various instructions, * sends them to 
preach to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, f and 
tells them : " He that receiveth you receiveth Me, and 
he that receiveth Me receiveth Him that sent Me" ; J 
promises them that when the Son of Man shall sit on 
the throne of His glory, they also shall sit on twelve 
thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel ; § and bids 
the eleven (after the defection of Judas) go and disciple 
all nations, baptizing and teaching them to observe all 
things which He had commanded them. || In the narrative 
of the Institution of the Eucharist, St. Matthew T and 
St. Mark ** record the commission to commemorate His 
sacrifice as spoken to the twelve^ St. Luke ft ^^ the twelve 
Apostles. St. John, who does not relate the Institution, 
records that which follows it, and represents our Lord as 
saying to the disciples, *' Ye have not chosen Me, but I 
have chosen you, and ordained you." W As there is no 
evidence of an)?- addition to the number present at the 
Institution, it is a matter of course that these words were 
spoken to the Apostles. 

These texts are sufficient evidence of an official char- 
acter given by our Lord to the Apostles involving 
authority as well as ministerial function. They would 
be sufficient even if they were not corroborated by that 
passage which many have regarded as the chief evidence 
of our Lord's commission to them ; that, namely, which 
occurs in St. John, xx. 21-23, and the interpretation of 
which controls the interpretation of St. Matt. xvi. 19, 



* St. Matt. X. f St. Matt. x. 5-7. % St. Matt. x. 40. 

§ St. Matt. xix. 28. II St. Matt, xxviii. 91, 20. 

^ St. Matt. xxvi. 20. ** St. Mark, xiv. 17. 

ft St. Luke, xxii. 14. \\ St. John, xv. 16. 



PERMANENT CHIEF OFFICE. 99 

and xviii. 18 ; and certainly if there were any reasonable 
ground of doubt about the application of this passage to 
the Apostles, that doubt should be settled in accordance 
with the plain meaning of other passages, and not be 
suffered to overbalance them. That there is no reasona- 
ble ground for this doubt, may perhaps be justly inferred 
from the unanimity with which it has been understood in 
the Church that the act of breathing and the accompany- 
ing words were directed to the Apostles alone : insomuch 
that it is no great venture to say that, prior to the present 
generation, and perhaps its predecessor, there is no 
defender of the Apostolic Succession who even so much 
as gives a reason or offers an argument for the propriety 
of this interpretation, so entirely is it taken for granted 
as a matter of course. It is strange, if the doubt have 
any reasonable foundation, that it should not have been 
discovered until, under the influence of the genius of 
popular sovereignty in the State, men began to cast 
about for evidences that the source of power in the 
Church also was in the Body and not in the Head. It 
is not, indeed, to be wondered at that under this influ- 
ence men should altogether scout the doctrine of Apos- 
tolic Succession ; but that men who profess an adherence 
to that doctrine should seek to accommodate it to the 
prejudices of its opposers by bringing it in circuitously 
in the guise of a grant from the people, is a process more 
commendable for its ingenuity than for its rectitude ; 
though the attempt to appropriate this passage to their 
purposes is less injurious than plausible. 

It is necessary to say, however, in pointing out the 
speciousness of this perversion of the obvious intent of 
the passage, on the ground of the fact that the Apostles 
are not here named by that title, and of the inference 



lOO ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. 

that Others than the Apostles were present at the inter- 
view described : (i) That the general, if not unanimous, 
usage of the Church has been to apply it to the Apos- 
tles ; (2) that St. John in his Gospel never once desig- 
nates the Apostles by that title, but always by that of 
Disciples which he here uses ; and (3) that, on the sup- 
position that it is true that others were present, there is 
no more reason for supposing that words implying an 
ofificial character were addressed to the company, and 
not to those who had already been set apart by an 
official appointment and designation, than there is for 
supposing that the very same words used in an ordina- 
tion of priests at the present day in a public service 
should be understood to be addressed to the congrega- 
tion, instead of to those who already had previously 
served the term of their Diaconate, and were there pres- 
ent to receive an advancement in their Order, 

That the authority shown by these texts to have been 
conferred upon the Apostles was given to them not only 
personally, but also officially, appears from the promise 
made in connection with the final commission, " Lo, I am 
with you alway, even unto the end of the world."* If 
this promise was made to the Apostles in a personal 
sense, it has failed ; unless it be understood to refer to a 
presence with them after death. But the promise was 
made to them in connection with the direction to dis- 
charge those duties which belonged to them only in life ; 
viz., preaching, baptizing, discipling, etc. Therefore, 
the promise of Christ's presence, and by consequence 
the commission of His authority, was to the Apostles 
in the official sense — to their office rather than to their 



* St. Matt, xxviii. 20. 



DIVINE GUIDANCE. lOI 

persons — and, being a promise in perpetuity, involves 
the permanence of the office. 

There is another consideration which adds strength to 
the position that there was in the Apostles not merely a 
personal authority or commission to do certain things, 
but also the tenure of an office in which powers were, so 
to speak, constitutionally lodged. This consideration is 
derived from the history of St. Thomas, whose absence 
from the company of the Apostles when our Lord said 
unto them, " As My Father hath sent Me, even so send I 
you," has led some to question the idea of an Apostolic 
commission, because, as it involves the same authority to 
each Apostle, the w^ant of authority in one would imply 
the want of authority in all. The case, however, if 
properly understood, bears in the other direction. For 
if St. Thomas was, like the rest of the twelve, regularly 
constituted an Apostle, as certainly he had long before 
been, he had thereby become entitled to his equal share 
of all the authority of the Apostolic office, at what 
time soever this authority might be verbally expressed ; 
and there was no reason why his absence on any one 
occasion of such expression should deprive him of what 
was as needful to him as to the others ; nor, as his sub- 
sequent history shows that he as well as the other Apos- 
tles exercised this office, is there any reason to infer that 
his absence on the occasion referred to caused him to 
lack any of those powers with which our Lord had 
endowed it. 

2. That the first holders of this office were enabled 
and directed by the Holy Spirit in their discharge of its 
duties, is important as establishing the Divine authority 
of their action in the distribution of the powers of the 
office into several Orders. This point needs no citation 



I02 ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. 

of evidence beyond the reference to the promise of our 
Lord to the Apostles ; * His direction to them, after 
authority {E^ovaUx) f had been conferred upon them, 
to refrain from its exercise until they should be endued 
with power (^dvvajAib) from on High ; \ and the descent 
of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost. § 

It may not be amiss, however, to add, that there seems 
to be as little ground for the inference that the presence 
of others besides the Apostles at the time and place of 
the descent of the Holy Spirit indicates the gift of the 
powers of the Ministry to the body of the faithful, as 
there is for the misapplication of the passage in St. John, 
XX. 21-23, already noted. An admission of the fact of 
such presence, even if it involve the participation of all 
in the grace given, does by no means include the conse- 
quence that this grace was solely the communication of 
ministerial power, much less that all those present re- 
ceived such power. Nothing is more elementary than 
that " there are diversities of gifts, but the same 
Spirit," II nor needs anything be more obvious than that 
the grace of the Holy Spirit descending on the Day of 
Pentecost was the Divine power given to each one 
receiving it to walk worthy of the vocation wherewith he 
was called ; so that the grace of the Ministry would, 
according to the analogy of the Divine dispensation, be 
bestowed upon those who had been already appointed to 
that Ministry, and the grace of the discipleship would be 
apportioned to the needs of that station. 



* St. John, xvi. 13. Acts, i. 4, 5. f St. Matt, xxviii. 18. 

X Acts, i. 8. § Acts, ii. 1-4. || i Cor. xii. 4-12. 



OFFICIAL POWER EXERCISED, 103 



PROPOSITION XIV. 

The Apostles exercised the power of government, and other 
powers belonging to their office. 

Nothing can be a plainer proof that these powers were 
conferred by our Lord upon the Apostles, than the fact 
that they exercised them. Nor is it possible to imagine 
that the powers of the Ministry should have been, accord- 
ing to modern theories, either evolved out of the con- 
sciousness of the Church, or delegated by it in pursuance 
of our Lord's intent or previous instruction, when we find 
the Apostles exercising them as a means of perpetuating 
and extending the Church itself, and imparting them to 
others for the like use. Obviously, and in the only 
natural or possible order of things, it is the Ministry 
which mediates between Christ and the Church, and not 
the Church which mediates between Christ and the Min- 
istry ; nor can there be any suspicion of a mistaken 
interpretation of the acts and words of our Lord, when 
that interpretation accords with the acts performed by 
the Apostles. " And whoever carefully reads over the 
New Testament will find that scarce any act of power 
was done by our Lord whilst He lived on earth, which 
was not, at least in some degree, exercised by the Apostles 
after His Ascension." * 

The exercise of their powers appears, among other 
things, in their taking order to supply the place of Judas 
(Acts, i. 15-26) ; in the matter of ordaining (Acts, vi. 1-6, 



* Archbishop Potter, " Church Government," ch. iii., the whole 
of which chapter should be read in this connection. 



104 ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. 

xiv. 23) ; of confirming (Acts, viii. 14-17, xix. 1-5) ; of 
excommunicating (i Cor. v, 3-5) ; of absolving (2 Cor. 
ii. 10) ; of making laws (Acts, xv. 28, 29 ; i Cor. xi., xiv.; 
2 Thess. iii. 4, 10, 12) ; and asserting their own author- 
ity against false Apostles (2 Cor. xi. 13 ; 3 John, 9, 10). 
" These are plain proofs that the Christian Church was 
then governed by the Apostles. Yet it must not be con- 
cealed that there were some at Corinth who disclaimed 
St. Paul's authority. But upon what pretence was this 
done ? Did they deny that the authority which he exer- 
cised belonged to the Apostolick Office ? If this had been 
objected, it would have put him upon asserting the power 
of the Apostles to govern the Church. But instead of 
that, he only proves his own title to the Apostolick Office, 
which these men seem to have denied, because he had 
been a persecutor, and was not one of the Twelve. Whence 
they rather chose to be called the followers of Apollos, 
who was an eloquent orator, or of Cephas, the first Apostle. 
In opposition to these schismatics, he proves himself to be 
an Apostle both in the general sense of that name, and 
particularly as he had been sent to preach the Gospel to 
them. . . . Ye are the seal of iniiie Apostleship in the 
Lord. ... So that this very objection is rather a 
proof that the Apostles had such an authority as was 
exercised by St. Paul ; since it appears, that they who 
denied him this authority, did it on this pretence, that he 
was not an Apostle ; and the way he takes to assert his 
right to this authority, is only to prove his right to the 
Apostolick Office." * 



Archbishop Potter, ut supr. 



ORDINARY AUTHORITY TRANSMITTED. 105 



PROPOSITION XV. 

In exercising the power of Ordination the Apostles (i) or- 
dained to two degrees inferior to their own, and (2) 
admitted some to their own order and transmitted to 
them their ordinary official authority. 

Under (i) see Acts, vi, 1-6, xiv. 23 ; under (2) see 
Epistles to Timothy and Titus. 

In saying that the Apostles admitted some to their own 
order, it is not meant that those who were thus admitted 
were possessed of all the powers and privileges which 
belonged to the original Apostles, but only that they 
received the ordinary official authority of the Apostles. 

The distinction between ordinary and extraordinary 
powers and gifts is both obvious and important, yet it is 
one which is not always observed. It is not an uncom- 
mon popular prejudice which considers the Episcopal 
claim to Apostolic succession amply refuted by the ab- 
sence of the power of the Bishops to work miracles as 
Apostles did ; nor indeed are the subjects of this preju- 
dice the only ones who misapprehend the nature of the 
miracle and its function in the Divine dispensations as 
the evidence of the Divine mission. But certainly, when 
this evidence has been sufficiently given to arrest the 
attention of men and induce them to admit the right of 
those who have furnished it to establish an order or sys- 
tem for the preservation and promulgation of the Divine 
message, the need for such extraordinary demonstrations 
and the power which produced them has passed away. 
And the system itself, with its historical record, becomes 
the standing evidence of its own Divine origin. 



io6 ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. 

*'I do not deny," says Bishop Bilson,* "but many 
things in the Apostles were personal, given them by 
God's wisdom for the first spreading of the faith and 
planting of the Churches amongst Jews and Gentiles. 
... To be called by Christ's own mouth and sent into 
all nations ; to be furnished with the infallible assurance 
of His truth, and visible assistance of His Spirit, not 
only to speak with tongues, cure diseases, work miracles, 
know secrets and understand all wisdom, but to give 
the Holy Ghost to others that they might do the like : 
these things I say were needful at the first planting of 
the Gospel. . . . But to maintain the Church once 
settled . . . there is no cause why either . . . 
should endure." 

The distinction is therefore very plain, in the matter 
of succession, between the personal and the official 
powers of the Apostles. Their personal gifts were not 
successive ; neither could those who succeeded to the 
office which they held, act in the government of the 
Church in all respects as those to whom the first settle- 
ment of it belonged. The point is that the Apostles 
transmitted to others, along with the power of ordination, 
that power of supervision and government over Churches 
in particular places which they themselves exercised 
before they committed the duty to others. These ordi- 
nary powers appear in the cases of Timothy and Titus, 
but there is a plain distinction between them and other 
powers of the Apostles, f 

Four extraordinary prerogatives are attributed to the 

* " The Perpetual Government of the Church," ch. ix., near the 
beginning. 

f As to the Episcopal authority of Timothy and Titus, see Arch- 
bishop Potter, ch. iv. 



ORDINARY AUTHORITY TRANSMITTED. 107 

original Apostles : (i) Immediate vocation by Christ 
Himself ; (2) Unlimited commission over all nations ; 

(3) Infallible direction both in preaching and writing ; 

(4) Power to work miracles— all of which were needful 
for the first planting of Churches, but were not conveyed 
to posterity by succession. " Other things they had 
which were necessary for the Church in all future ages, 
in which they had successors. They had power to min- 
ister the Word and Sacraments, wherein every Presbyter 
succeedeth them. They ordained ministers, executed 
censures, and other things belonging to the government 
of the Church, wherein every Bishop succeedeth them."* 

Every Apostle was in fact a Bishop in the sense that 
the Episcopal was included within the Apostolic power ; 
and the Bishop is an Apostle in the sense of having 
received by transmission that ordinary and successive 
Episcopal authority which was not only included in the 
Apostolic office, but which was also the distinguish- 
ing characteristic of it.f For it is not to be over- 
looked that the possession of extraordinary gifts was 
by no means distinctive of Apostles, but is attributed in 
the New Testament to many who were not Apostles ; 
whereas the authority of the Apostolic office belonged 
only to those who held that office. 

* Mason's "Consecration of English Bishops," lib. iv. cap. iii. 

f See Andrewes' " Summary View of the Old and New Testa- 
ments," and cf. Mason's "Consecration of English Bishops," lib. i. 
cap. iv. ; and Bilson's "Perpetual Government of the Church," Ep. 
to Reader, p. 11. 



lo8 ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. 



PROPOSITION XVI. 

The Apostles recognized as possessing the authority belong- 
ing to their several offices some whom it does not appear 
that they themselves ordained ; but they recognized no 
office as superior to their own, and no powers as exempt 
from their government. 

1. St. Paul, receiving his commission from Christ 
equally with the other Apostles,* was recognized as an 
Apostle.f 

2. Barnabas is mentioned by St. Paul as being included 
in the same recognition. J He is traditionally ranked as 
an Apostle, but there is no evidence of his ordination 
unless it be found in Acts xiii. 1-3, which, however, was 
probably his appointment to a special work. 

The objection to regarding this as his consecration to 
the Apostolate is that the evidence places him and St. 
Paul in the same position. If one was then consecrated, 
so was the other. But St. Paul certainly was not (Gal. 
i. i) ; therefore Barnabas was not. He may have been 
consecrated at some other time by Apostles, or he may 
have received an extraordinary commission ; there is no 
evidence of either, but the recognition of him shows that 
there was one or the other. 

3. The same remark may be made with respect to 
Epaphroditus, mentioned by St, Paul as the Apostle 
to the Philippians, vugdv aTroaroXor^^ and others, 
anoaroXoi eKK\7]Gi(2)y.\ 



Gal. i. T. f Gal. ii. 6-10. . :}: Gal. ii. 9. 

§ Phil. ii. 25. 11 2 Cor. viii. 23. 



ORDINARY AUTHORITY SUPREME. 109 

4. St. Paul recognizes prophets and evangelists, pas- 
tors and teachers, as occupying a place in the Ministry, 
or as exercising functions of the Ministry equivalent to 
those of Presbyters and Deacons.* 

There is no evidence of the ordination of ministers 
under these titles, but there is evidence that the functions 
of the Ministry exercised by those who acted under these 
titles were exercised by the Divine commission. It is 
probable that these titles were names applied to the 
regular orders. Certainly there is evidence that those 
who held the ordinary commission under the ordinary 
titles exercised functions implied in the special titles 
referred to in these texts. .Philip the Deacon w^as an 
evangelist, f The elders were exhorted by St. Peter, as 
pastors, to feed the flock.}; That prophets were equiva- 
lent to presb)^ters, seems to have been the tradition of 
the Church, and to be indicated in Ephesians ii. 20. 
Compare also the Collect for the Feast of St. Simon 
and St. Jude. 

Either the offices indicated by these special titles were 
the same as those denoted by the titles which were after- 
ward retained by the Church, or else they were merely 
extraordinary and belonged only to the period of mirac- 
ulous gifts ; so that the references to them in the New 
Testament do not affect the argument for the threefold 
Ministry. Reference is here made to them only to show 
that, whatever they were, they were inferior to the 
Apostles. 

Whatever gifts extraordinary might be bestowed by the 
Holy Spirit, those who received them were not above 



■* I Cor. xii. 28 ; Eph. iv. 11. 

f Acts xxi. 8. X I St. Pet. v. 1,2. 



no ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. 

the authority of the Apostolic office. St. Paul's direc- 
tions as to the conduct of the prophets (i Cor. xiv.) 
show the inferiority of their office to his. Compare also 
the order in which the several ministries are enumerated 
by St. Paul (i Cor. xii. 28 ; Eph. iv. 11). 



CONFIRMATORY EVIDENCE. m 



PROPOSITION XVIL 

The evidence of the establishment of the Ministry derived 
from the Gospels, Acts, and Epistles is such as to raise 
a presumption in favor of the threefold order, requiring 
positive proof to rebut it. 

No such proof can be derived from the Scriptures. 
So far from it, the last book of the Canon proves the 
existence in several Churches of officers having the 
Episcopal power of the Apostolic office, and called by 
a name of the same import with that of Apostle, which 
strengthens the presumption already raised.* 

Other circumstances there are which tend to confirm 
the evidence above produced, and show that it is not the 
result of any forced interpretation of the Scriptures. 

1. The analogy of the threefold order in the Jewish 
Ministry. 

2. The intimations of the will of Christ given : 

A. In the appointment of two orders of the Ministry 
under Him while He ministered on earth, the Apostles 
and the seventy Disciples ; as to which two appointments, 
their distinction from and relation to each other, reference 
should be made to Archbishop Potter's ch. ii. 

B. In the three several degrees by which He advanced 
the Apostles to the fulness of their authority (the com- 
mission to the lost sheep of the House of Israel ; the 
commission to the consecration of the Eucharist ; the 

* See this evidence, which some modern defenders of Apostolic 
Succession have rather gratuitously presented to the adversary, very 
judiciously handled by Archbishop Potter, ch. iv. pp. 138-141, edition 
of 1753. 



112 ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. 

commission to disciple all nations), corresponding with 
the three degrees of His own ministry (marked by His 
Baptism, His Resurrection, and His Ascension, in each of 
which he seems to have received an accession of author- 
ity, although he seems also to anticipate the last two 
degrees by His commission at the Last Supper, and by 
the final commission given before His Ascension, but, of 
course, in view of it).* 

3. The unbroken tradition and testimony of the 
Church. 



Ante, pp. 69-72. 



LIMITATION. 113 



PROPOSITION XVIII. 

The authority of the Bishops, being such as belonged to the 
Apostles officially, must be subject to such limitations as 
attached to the Apostles themselves in the discharge of 
their office. 

This is obvious unless it be supposed that the Apostles 
conferred greater powers than they themselves possessed, 
which is absurd. 

Limitations attaching to the Apostles in the discharge 
of their official authority, w^ere of two kinds : 

1. Such as were necessarily involved in their original 
commission. 

2. Such as, acting infallibly under the guidance of the 
Spirit, they imposed upon themselves. 

I. Involved in their original commission were : 

A. The duty of obedience to the laws of God, the 
Apostles being ministers of the Divine will, and not of 
their own arbitrary power. The exercise of their power 
to make laws, as well as of their other powers, is affected 
by this limitation. 

B. The duty of confining their official acts to spiritual, 
in distinction to civil, matters. In the former they were 
rulers, as representing Christ in the government of His 
visible kingdom on earth ; in the latter they were sub- 
jects, as being members of the Commonwealth, and 
amenable to its laws in all things not contrary to the will 
of God, in accordance with the example and precept of 
Christ, Who declined to interfere in controversies per- 
taining to the civil courts (St. Luke xii. 13, 14), and 

8 



114 ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. 

Who bade men render unto Caesar the things of Caesar 
(St. Matt. xxii. 21). 

C. The duty of subordination on the part of the indi- 
vidual Apostle to the College of Apostles. 

The commission of the individual presupposed his 
acting with the express or implied assent of his brethren 
having the same commission. 

The same remark may be made with reference to the 
individual Bishop in his relation to the body of the 
Episcopate ; only it is to be observed that it presumes 
the same conformity to the fundamental laws of Christ's 
kingdom as it presumed in the original Apostles. 

The important principles in this connection are : ist, 
the unity of the Apostolate, or Episcopate, considered as 
the office which Christ established for the government 
of His Church ; 2dly, the official equality of the Apos- 
tles, or Bishops, considered as individuals having each 
an undivided equal share in the powers lodged in 
that office ; and, 3dly, their subordination, not individ- 
ually to each other, but individually to the collective 
body. 

Christ gave the commission of authority not to one, 
but to all the Apostles. That He addressed St. Peter on 
one occasion, promising to him by name a commission to 
govern His Church, may be admitted ; but that this does 
not derogate from the joint commission and equal 
authority of all the Apostles, appears from the facts : 
I St, that the same commission p7'07?iised to St. Peter (St. 
Matt. xvi. 19) is also promised to the other Apostles (St. 
Matt, xviii. 18), and is afterwards give7i to all the Apostles 
(St. John XX. 22, 23) ; and if to St. Peter at all, then only 
at this time and in connection with the other Apostles ; 
and, 2d, that in the other gifts of authority, e.g.^ to cele- 



LIMITATION. 115 

brate the Eucharist and to disciple and baptize all nations, 
all are included. 

2. The Holy Spirit, by the action of the Apostles whom 
He inspired, appears to have prescribed two further 
limitations to the exercise of their supreme authority. 

A. The first of these was the duty of consulting with 
inferior orders and laity. 

In the account given in the Book of the Acts, of the 
coming together of the Apostles to consider a certain 
matter, it appears that the Elders were associated with 
them, and that the decree which they made was put forth 
with the consent of the whole Church, /.<?., of the whole 
Church at Jerusalem ; from which some have inferred 
that the laity also were concerned in the formal assent 
to this decree.* It does not follow, however, that the 
laity or Elders had a joint authority with the Apostles. 
This council was of a general or universal character, 
both in respect to the operation of its decrees and in 
respect to the Apostles, who were the joint and several 
governors of the whole Church. The Elders and laity, 
so far as appears from the New Testament, have no 
power, as such, to make laws or set forth decrees. What- 
ever power they had must have been derived from the 
Apostles, or else have been of a representative character, 
as conferred by the consent and authorization of the 
Disciples in general. But there appears to have been no 
representation of the Church at large by these Elders and 
laity. There was certainly nothing more than a repre- 
sentation of the Church at Jerusalem, even if so much as 
this can be supposed. And as for authority derived from 
the Apostles to make laws for the Church, there appears 



* See Archbishop Potter, ch. v. 7, " Power of Making Laws." 



Il6 ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. 

no evidence of it here or elsewhere. The whole author- 
ity, as we have seen, was vested in the Apostles ; but 
they had a right, and under the guidance of the Holy 
Spirit they seem to have considered it their duty, to take 
counsel of Clergy and laity who were subject to their 
authority. This, no doubt, was on the principle, afterwards 
stated by St. Paul, of the unity of the body ; that all 
were members one of another, and that none could affirm 
that he had no need of the others ;* and on the further 
principle laid down by St. Peter for the Elders (calling 
himself an Elder at this time, as if to show that the prin- 
ciple applied as well to Apostles), that they should take 
the oversight of the people, not as being lords over God's 
heritage, but as being ensamples to the flock. f 

B. Another limitation of their authority appears to 
have been adopted by the Apostles acting under the 
guidance of the Holy Spirit, which had reference to the 
field within which their ministry should be exercised. 

The Apostles had a common mission from Christ to 
go into all the world, but it was their province under 
the Holy Ghost to settle the principle upon which that 
common mission was to be fulfilled ; and in fulfilling it 
they went not all together, nor did they carry on their 
work each one without regard to the other. They sepa- 
rated, and adopted limits for their work in the ministry. 
Dean Jackson seems to attribute this distribution of 
labors to Christ himself, saying : " Their opinion is 
very probable who think that every Apostle had his 
peculiar circuit allotted him by Christ, and* that they 
did dispose themselves into twelve several parts of the 
world." Perhaps, however, the last half of this sentence 



* I Cor. xii. 20, 21. f I St. Pet. v. 1-3. 



LIMITATION. 117 

States what he particularly meant to affirm ; his intention 
being to indicate the distribution, rather than to dis- 
tinguish between the direction of Christ and of the Holy- 
Spirit. No doubt the direction was from Christ, even if 
through the Holy Spirit ; but the evidence of it appears 
not in the recorded words of Christ, but in the acts of the 
inspired Apostles.* 

Generally the field of work which they occupied was 
denoted by place, as when Saul and Barnabas were sepa- 
rated for a certain work, going to Seleucia, Cyprus, and 
Salamis ; f Barnabas afterwards going to Cyprus again, 
and St, Paul to Syria and Cilicia.J So, too, the Apostles 
" sent Peter and John " on a special mission to Samaria. § 
And so, too, St. Paul, writing to the Corinthians, seems 
to justify his right to preach the Gospel to them accord- 
ing to the measure of the rule or line which God had 
distributed to the Apostles ; a measure which in his case 
reached even unto them.|| 

In one notable division of work, however, the mission 
seems to have been directed towards different classes of 
people, irrespective of their dwelling place ; the Gospel 
of the Circumcision being committed to St. Peter, and 
that of the Uncircumcision to St. Paul,^ an arrangement 



* See Jackson's Works, Book XII. ch. viii. § 5. See also in 
the same place his comment on Acts i. 24, that the Greek may bear 
another sense than that commonly put upon it : "to wit, that he 
that took part of the ministration and Apostleship from which Judas 
had fallen, might be sent that circuit which Judas, had he not fallen, 
should have gone." He refers to Mason (Lib. I. ch. iv. p. 24) ; 
but Mason does not here say what Jackson says, though what he does 
say is not inconsistent with Jackson's curious and interesting com- 
ment. 

f Acts xiii. 2-4. X Acts xv. 39-41. § Acts viii. 14. 

\ 2 Cor. X. II, 16. T[ Gal. ii. 7. 



liS ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. 

obviously temporary in its nature, caused by the remark- 
able tenacity of the Jews to their national customs, and 
in accordance with the special object for which St. Paul 
received his Apostolate, yet not so exclusively excep- 
tional as to be without a certain venerable precedent in 
primitive times, nor without the hope of a possible use 
in the healing of schisms in a country wherein the eccle- 
siastical estate is free from all entanglement with the 
civil, and whose citizens have been gathered out of the 
Churches of all nations — provided the time shall ever 
come when all these Churches, retaining their own indi- 
vidualities and pious opinions, can occupy the really 
Catholic ground in respect of the essential principles of 
faith and order.* 



* "Yet it must be observed," remarks Bingham, "that as the 
great end and design of this rule [that two Bishops should not be 
ordained in one city] was to prevent schism and preserve the peace 
and unity of the Church, so, on the other hand, when it manifestly 
appeared that the allowing of two Bishops in one city, in some cer- 
tain circumstances and critical junctures, was the only way to put an 
end to some long and inveterate schism, in that case there were some 
Catholic Bishops who were willing to take a partner into their throne, 
and share the Episcopal power and dignity between them. Thus 
Meletius, Bishop of Antioch, made the proposal to Paulinus, his 
antagonist, who, though he was of the same faith, yet kept up a 
Church divided in communion from him. I shall relate the proposal 
in the words of Theodoret. ' Meletius,' says he, ' the meekest of men, 
thus friendly and mildly addressed himself to Paulinus : "Forasmuch 
as the Lord hath committed to me the care of these sheep, and thou 
hast received the care of others, and all the sheep agree in one com- 
mon faith, let us join our flocks, my friend, and dispute no longer 
about primacy and government, but let us feed the sheep in common, 
and bestow a common care upon them. And, if it be the throne that 
creates the dispute, I will try to take away this cause also. We will 
lay the Holy Gospel upon the seat, and then each of us take his place 



LIMITATION. 119 

The general rule, of course, is that the field of work is 
within a certain place, and to the examples already ad- 
duced as indicating this rule may be added the case of 
St. James the Less, whom tradition calls the Bishop of 
Jerusalem, and of the recognition of whose superior posi- 
tion in that city there seems to be good evidence in the 
Book of the Acts. In the council of Acts xv. he seems 
to hold the position of presiding officer ; when St. Peter 
was delivered by the angel he tells his friends to show 
these things to James and to the brethren ; * and when 
St. Paul returned to Jerusalem he went in unto James^ 
all the Elders being present with him.f 

These examples are sufficient to exhibit the principle 
on which the common mission of Christ was fulfilled by 
the Apostles. They go to the extent of showing that 
while the Apostles were all equal in their authority, yet 
they did not assume to exercise their authority equally in 
all places ; but either by assignment of the College, or in 
the exercise of individual judgment, tacitly sanctioned by 
the College, or by special direction of the Holy Ghost, 
they went into separate fields of work. We do not find; 
so far as the Scriptural account goes, that the Apostles 
were so limited that they were resident as Bishops subse- 
quently were, except in the case of St. James. Even in 



on either side of it. And if I die first, you shall take the government 
of the flock alone ; but if it be your fate to die before me, then I will 
feed them according to my power." Thus spake the Divine Meletius,' 
says our author, * lovingly and meekly, but Paulinus would not acqui- 
esce nor hearken to him.' 

" We meet with another such proposal, made to the Donatist 
Bishops by all the Catholic Bishops of Africa assembled together, 
at the opening of the famous conference at Carthage." — Christian 
Antiquities, Book II. ch. xiii. sec. 2. 

* Acts xii. 17. f Acts xxi, 18. 



120 ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. 

this case the settlement depends chiefly upon the evidence 
of traditional history, although there are sufficient Scrip- 
tural grounds for the acceptance of the Church tradition. 
In the case of other Apostles we find such tradition, 
though without the same support ; and this tradition 
plainly sustains the principle of the distribution of the 
common mission into special fields of work, though 
apparently it does not indicate such permanent residence 
as appears in those who succeeded them, except as it 
might be temporarily, or possibly at the close of life, after 
the completion of a circuit of what we would now call 
missionary labor. St. Peter is said to have resided in 
Antioch, and is claimed to have resided at Rome, though 
this has been largely disputed. St. John is said to have 
resided at Ephesus after his return from banishment. 
But, however all this might have been, it is certain that 
the Apostles were not so limited to special districts as 
Bishops are, and it seems equally certain that the prin- 
ciple of separate fields of work was applied by them to 
their successors with the condition of residence, Timothy 
being placed at Ephesus ; Titus at Crete ; the seven 
angels, to whom St. John delivered the message of the 
Spirit, to the seven Churches, each being in charge of the 
Church in his own city, as the Scripture shows ; and St. 
Mark having been settled at Alexandria, as tradition 
affirms ; and such has ever since been the rule. So that, 
as Archbishop Potter says, " If we descend to the next 
ages, there will scarce be found any testimony for Epis- 
copacy, which does not prove that Bishops were limited 
to a certain district in the ordinary exercise of their 
office." * 



* "Church Government," ch. v. pt. 4. 



LiMITATlOiV. 121 

From all of which it appears that, according to the 
constitution of the Church, as it was settled by Christ 
and the Apostles acting under Divine direction, the 
authority of the Apostolic or Episcopal office, although 
supreme, is yet to be exercised subject to certain limita- 
tions, which may be thus re-stated : 

1. It must be exercised in accordance with the law of 
God. 

2. It is confined to the Church. 

3. It involves the subordination of the individual 
Bishop to the determination of his brethren of the Epis- 
copate given by common consent and conformably to 
the fundamental laws of Christ's kingdom. 

4. It is to be exercised, not tyrannically, but with due 
regard to the inferior members of the Body of Christ. 

5. It is to be exercised by individual Bishops, not 
indiscriminately everywhere, but in places to v/hich they 
are duly appointed. 

Besides the limitations which are thus classified, the 
general principle is to be noted that the authority of the 
Bishops as successors to the Apostolic Office does not ex- 
tend to the overthrow of that which the Apostles estab- 
lished as part of the permanent order of the Church. 
And as between various Apostolic regulations, the test of 
permanence is the action of the Church in the succeeding 
ages, either accepting and using, or abandoning what the 
Apostles ordained. 

The value of this test does not depend upon any au- 
thority in the Church to set aside matters of Apostolic 
rule, but upon the importance of the evidence which the 
action of the Church in those ages furnishes as to the 
intent of the Apostles and of the Holy Spirit Who guided 
them. Whatever the Apostles ordained as matter of local 



122 ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. 

or temporary importance would be so regarded by the 
Church, and would not long survive the reason which 
required it. Whatever the Apostles ordained as part of 
the standing order of the Church, would be so received 
by the Church, and would survive and be handed down 
to subsequent ages ; as, for instance, the Presbyterate 
and the Diaconate come to us not merely as Apostolic 
ordinances, but as Apostolic ordinances which the Apostles 
and the Holy Ghost intended to be permanent. They 
were accepted and used by the Church, and handed down 
to subsequent ages with the concurrent testimony that 
they were a part of the permanent or constitutional order 
of the Church, no more lawfully capable of essential 
alteration than the Episcopal Office, or the matter of the 
Faith itself. 



JURISDICTION. 123 



PROPOSITION XIX. 

The existence of limitations upon the exercise of the au- 
thority of the Apostolic or Episcopal Office implies the 
distinction between power and right, which applies to 
ministerial functions of every degree. The power of 
order in general is to be distinguished from the right 
to exercise that power. The lawful right to exercise 
the power of order is jurisdiction. 

Since the right to exercise power is generally limited 
to some place, the place is often considered as the juris- 
diction ; but, properly speaking, jurisdiction is, in itself, 
the right to exercise power {a jure dicendo). 

Some writers distinguish jurisdiction into two kinds, 
habitual d^Tidi actual ^"^ by which, however, they mean the 
possession of power and the right to exercise power. 
Habitual jurisdiction is equivalent to the power which a 
Bishop has by admission into his order. He is said to 
have actual jurisdiction when he may lawfully exercise 
this power, either by virtue of due appointment to a 
certain field, or by consent of the Bishop of another 
diocese. Others state the distinction as between order 
and mission. 

Palmer illustrates this as follows : '' If a regularly or- 
dained Priest should celebrate the Eucharist in the Church 
of another, contrary to the will of that person and of the 
Bishop, he would have the power of consecrating the 
Eucharist — it actually would be consecrated — but he 
would not have the right of consecrating ; or, in other 



* Blunt's " Theo, and Hist. Diet.," iiile, Jurisdiction, and authors 
cited. 



124 ECCLESIASTICAL POLLTV. 

words, he would not have mission for that act. If a 
Bishop should enter the diocese of another Bishop, and, 
contrary to his will, ordain one of his Deacons to the 
Priesthood, the intruding Bishop would have the power, 
but not the right of acting. In fact, mission fails in all 
schismatical, heretical, and uncanonical acts, because God 
cannot have given any man the right to act in opposition 
to those laws which He Himself has enacted, or which 
the Apostles and their successors have instituted for the 
orderly and peaceable regulation of the Church. He is 
not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all the 
Churches of the saints. . . . Mission can only be 
given for acts in accordance with the Divine and ecclesi- 
astical laws, the latter of which derive their authority 
from the former, and it is conferred by valid ordination. 
. . . Should the ordination be valid, and yet uncanon- 
ical, mission does not take effect until the suspension im- 
posed by the canons on the person ordained is in some 
lawful manner removed." * 

The terms '' mission " and "jurisdiction " are sometimes 
so used as to lead to confusion. There is a sense in which 
they are to be distinguished ; there is also a sense in 
which they mean the same. Mission is to be distinguished 
from jurisdiction when the latter word is used in its limited 
signification, in which case the word "mission" has also 
a limited meaning, having reference to the canonical or 
lawful sending of a person ordained to a certain see or 
duty. Although mission in its wider sense be received by 



* "Antiquities of English Ritual," II. pp. 247, 248, by theauthorof 
the "Treatise of the Church of Christ," and other works of great 
value to the student of Church polity — the Rev. William Palmer of 
Worcester College ; not to be confounded with Rev. William Palmer 
(the Deacon) of Magdalen. 



JURISDICTION. 125 

valid ordination, yet one may be validly ordained without 
receiving mission in the limited sense. If a Bishop were 
to be consecrated without having a see assigned to him, 
or with assignment to a see already full, although validly 
ordained, his mission would be defective, and those 
whom he, with other Bishops similarly situated, might 
consecrate would have the like defective mission. This 
is the case of the Bishops of the Roman schism in Eng- 
land. Supposing their ordination to be valid, they lack 
mission because they have been ordained to jurisdictions 
already occupied, and minister contrary to the canons of 
the Catholic Church, in opposition to other Bishops law- 
fully settled in the sam.e place. By consequence their 
Priests also lack mission ; and the same remark, of course, 
applies to all the emissaries of the Roman See who have 
served opposing altars in that country from the time of 
the first withdrawal of the Papal adherents from the 
communion of the C hurch of England, in the reign of 
Elizabeth, up to the comparatively recent formal estab- 
lishment of the hierarchy there.* 

It is sometimes said by those who accept this state- 
ment so far as England is concerned, or who fail to make 
a satisfactory answer to it, that the position cannot be 
maintained in the United States of America, since in some 
portions of that civil jurisdiction there has been a prior 
occupation by the Bishops of the Roman Communion. 
The reason assigned is, however, by no means to be taken 
for granted. Of the thirteen States which originally 
constituted the United States, there was none that had 



* Cf. Seabury's " Haddan on Apostolic Succession,'' pp. 106-111. 
The student should read on the whole of this question Bishop Bram- 
hall's " Just Vindication of the Church of England from the charge 
of criminous sghism." Works, Anglo-CathoHc Library, vol. i. 



126 ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. 

not previously been a colony of England, and as such 
occupied by the Church of England. The colonies were 
an extension of England into America ; and if the adher- 
ents to the Papacy were in schism in England, it is 
difficult to understand how that state of things could be 
changed by being transported over the ocean.* What 
constituted the Roman schism (in this aspect of it) was 
the intrusion into a country where the order of the 
Church was already settled, and where the faith and 
sacraments of Christ were guarded by a lawful succes- 
sion of Bishops. The same order existed in the colonies. 
With whatever imperfection of administration, resulting 
from the delay of sending Bishops to reside in the 
colonies, this order was lawfully and canonically settled, 
parishes and missions being established under care of 
regularly ordained Priests amenable to, and acting under, 
the jurisdiction of rightly and duly consecrated Bishops 
in England. And when, after the Revolutionary War, 
these colonies became independent States, and resident 
Bishops were supplied to the members of the Church in 
those States from the same lawful succession, although 
their jurisdiction was, properly speaking, each one within 
his own State, yet their position enabled them to furnish, 
and in fact they did furnish, to the members of the 
Church in all the States such Episcopal ministrations as 
were needful for the perpetuation and extension of that 
Church, and for the preservation of it in the unity of 
the Catholic communion. They associated themselves 
together, and took order for the continuance of their 
succession, and for the oversight of the Church in all the 
States of the Union. 



* Palmer, " Church of Christ," i. 305 



JURISDIC TION. 1 2 7 

The introduction of the Roman Episcopate into the 
United States was, therefore, as unnecessary in that 
country as had been the intrusion of the Papal emis- 
saries into England. Due provision, in accordance with 
the requirements of the Catholic canons, was made for 
the perpetuation of the succession of the Anglican Epis- 
copate before the succession of the Roman Episcopate 
was introduced. In the State of Maryland it is true that 
the Roman Bishop Carroll was consecrated in 1790, and 
the Anglo-American Bishop Claggett in 1792. If the 
States had stood alone and apart from each other, the 
question of mere priority of Episcopal occupation — set- 
ting aside all other questions — would in that single State 
be decided in favor of the Roman succession. But the 
States did not stand alone, either civilly or ecclesiastically, 
but in both kinds were engaged in a common union, 
whereby they became members one of another ; so that a 
defect in either might, in accordance with the terms of 
their union, be supplied from the common government 
of all. The settlement of Bishop Carroll in Maryland 
was, therefore, an intrusion into a place which was already 
under the care of a lawful Episcopate, and in accordance 
with that care was designed to be, and soon after actually 
was, provided with a resident Bishop of its own. There 
was here practically as much a setting up of altar against 
altar as there would have been had Claggett actually 
been first consecrated ; for the place was a recognized 
Diocesan jurisdiction, part and parcel of a system of 
Diocesan jurisdictions — the Church in the State of Mary- 
land being equally with the Church in other States of 
the Union represented as such in the Ecclesiastical 
Union, each State being regarded as the field of a dis- 
tinct Episcopal jurisdiction. 



128 ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. 

If the question of schismatical intrusion depended 
upon right of priority merely, it would be fairly decided 
by the fact that Maryland w^as, at the time of the entrance 
of the Roman Bishop, one member of an Episcopal 
system, having the right to the succession provided by 
that system, and having the ability and intent to obtain 
it. And if we look beyond the case of the original 
members of this system, to the case of those States and 
Territories which were afterwards added to it, and some 
of which were at the time of their accession, or had been 
prior to it, inhabited by those who acknowledged the 
jurisdiction of the Roman See, it is not beyond the 
bounds of reason to regard them in the same light — as 
becoming by their accession to the civil Union of right 
entitled to the Episcopal oversight belonging to the 
ecclesiastical system which had been established in con- 
sequence of the establishment of the civil system, and 
was designed to be coextensive with it, and was under 
obligation to extend throughout its limits. So that the 
Roman hierarchy set up schismatically and unnecessarily 
in Maryland, could not, in its extension into other States 
of the Union, whether the inhabitants of these had pre- 
viously been under the Roman obedience or not, be other 
than schismatic and unnecessary in those States as well 
as in Maryland — seeing that they were all equally grafted 
into a canonical system of Episcopal oversight. 

It may, indeed, be said that the Episcopal oversight 
thus provided was lacking in proper qualifications for its 
exercise, or that the Roman Episcopate was better suited 
to the requirements of those who had been accustomed 
to Roman usage. This, however, is to present an en- 
tirely different question from that of priority of occu- 
pation ; and as to this point there appears to be no 



/ URISDIC TION. 129 

sufficient reason for giving away the position that the 
system of Episcopal oversight appHcable to all who 
dwelt within the civil Union was lawfully and in fact 
established within that Union before the system of the 
Roman hierarchy derived from Carroll was introduced, 
even supposing that that hierarchy was in other respects 
duly and orderly established in accordance with the 
Catholic canons, which would be somewhat difficult of 
proof.* 



* Pope Pius VL, by Bull of November 6, 1789, appointed the Rev. 
Dr. John Carroll Bishop of Baltimore, "granting to him the faculty 
of receiving the rite of consecration from any Catholic Bishop hold- 
ing communion with the Apostolic See, assisted by two ecclesiastics 
vested with some dignity, in case that two Bishops cannot be had, 
first having taken the usual oath according to the Roman Pontifical." 
— "A Short Account of the Establishment of the new See of Balti- 
more." Printed by J. P. Coghlan, London, 1790, page 17. 

" Upon the receipt of his Bulls from Rome he immediately re- 
paired to England, where his person and merit were well known, and 
presented himself for consecration to the Right Rev. Dr. Charles 
Walmsley, -Bishop of Rama, senior Vicar Apostolical of the Catholic 
religion in this kingdom. By invitation of Thomas Weld, Esq., the 
consecration of the new Bishop was perform.ed during a solemn high 
mass in the elegant chapel at Lullworth Caslle, on Sunday, the istli 
day of August, 1790, being the feast of the Assumption of the Blessed 
Virgin Mary, and the munificence of that gentleman omitted no cir- 
cumstance which could possibly add dignity to so venerable a cere- 
mony. The two Prelates were attended by their respective assistant 
priests and acolytes, according to the rubric of the Roman Pontifical, 
etc."— 7/5., pp. 3, 4. 

Referring to this event among others, in commenting upon the 
frequent occurrence in the Roman practice of consecration by a sin- 
gle Bishop, Palmer remarks : 

" Dr. John Carroll, the first titular Bishop of Baltimore in America, 
from whom the whole Romish hierarchy of the United States derive 
their Orders, was consecrated by the same Dr. Walmslev at Lull- 



130 ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. 

It must be allowed, however, that the question of pri- 
ority of occupation is not the only, nor indeed the 
really controlling, question in regard to the jurisdiction 
claimed. It is entirely understood that however it may 
be convenient to claim a priority of occupation for the 
adherents of the Papacy, yet that claim is a mere incident 
to the general repudiation of all mission on the part of 
the Anglican Episcopate, even if the actual validity of its 
consecrations be admitted ; nor would the Romans any 
more regard the Anglican Episcopate than would the 
Anglicans, under similar conditions, regard the so-called 
Episcopate of the Methodists. The question, therefore, 
that lies back of the question of jurisdiction by reason 
of possession of particular sees, is the question of mis- 
sion in its wider sense, as involving the lawful right to 
use the power of order at all ; the controversy in re- 
gard to which is not affected by the conditions of resi- 
dence in this country, but has been always waged in 
England as well as here. On the Roman side, the 
Anglican mission is denied on various grounds which 
must be separately considered. On the Anglican side, 
the Roman mission has been repudiated not only on the 
ground of intrusion, but on the much broader ground 
that the Roman authority imposes sinful terms of Com- 
munion, and that a mission which empowers the min- 
istry — even if that ministry be validly ordained — to 
require belief, as necessary to salvation, in doctrines new 
in the Church, and incapable of proof from Holy Scrip- 



worth, August 15, 1790. We have, indeed, no reason to think that 
Dr. Walmsley himself was consecrated by more than one Bishop. 
It seems as if the Roman Pontiffs had no difficulty in giving permis- 
sion for such ordinations in foreign missions." — " Church of Christ,' 
part vi., ch. xi., vol. ii., pp. 471-2, ed. 1839. 



JURISDICTION. ^l^ 

ture, putting these opinions of men upon the same 
ground as the Articles of the Catholic Creed, is no mis- 
sion in the proper sense of that word, and is inherently 
incapable of sustaining jurisdiction in any place. This 
is the real question between the ministry of the Anglican 
and of the Roman Communion. On the part of the 
Roman Ministry the course pursued has always been 
that of aggression, involving the uncompromising re- 
quirement of absolute submission to the Roman juris- 
diction wherever planted. On the part of the Anglican 
Ministry the course pursued has been that of self- 
defence ; no disposition — at least until of late years — 
having been shown to carry out to its logical conclusion 
this principle of a Mission forfeited by the confusion of 
opinion with faith into one common tyranny. But the 
principle is sound and just. The Bishops of the Church 
of Christ are to be successors to the Apostles, not only in 
order, but also in faith. And if those who have received 
a valid succession of order have succeeded to a corrupt 
faith, and require of those who will be saved the same 
acceptance of questionable and new doctrines as of the 
undoubted Catholic verities, there is no mission of 
Christ which can sustain such requirements ; * and what- 
ever may be said in regard to the advisability of carry- 
ing the war into the camp of an enemy, there can be no 
question as to the right of defending the home. 

To return, however, to the consideration of the general 
subject, mission and jurisdiction, in the broad and full 
sense of the words, mean the same thing ; and in this 
sense they follow upon a valid ordination. Where the 



* See the Creed of Pius IV., and the decrees of the Immaculate 
Conception and of Papal Infallibility. Cf. Percival's "Roman 
^Schism," illustrated. 



132 ECCLES/ASTJCAL POLITY. 

power of order is conferred, there is also conferred the 
general mission for the diffusing of the Gospel through- 
out the world. In this sense the Apostles possessed uni- 
versal mission and jurisdiction ; and in the like sense the 
Bishops, as successors of the Apostles, possess universal 
mission and jurisdiction. They have the power, and the 
right to exercise the power, which those to whom they 
are sent are bound to x^zogmz^, provided it is exercised 
in accordance with the canons of the Church and in the 
support of the faith of Christ. " Every Bishop has uni- 
versal mission and jurisdiction by virtue of his integral 
share in the Apostolic office and commission conveyed to 
him by consecration. This being premised, the question 
of local mission and jurisdiction becomes comparatively 
an easy matter."'^ 

The result of these distinctions seems, on the whole, to 
be this : valid consecration confers universal mission, 
which when lawfully localized confers jurisdiction in the 
limited sense. The case is well stated by Hooker (vii., 
xiv. lo) : " There are but two main things observed in 
every ecclesiastical function : power to exercise the duty 
itself, and some charge of | eople whereon to exercise the 
same." Here the power is the power of order, and the 
charge of people is jurisdiction. The relation of order 
to jurisdiction is also happily illustrated by the follow- 
ing passage from Mason's " Consecration of English 
Bishops " : t " When a Bishop is translated to another 
see, he doth not lose his former habitual power, no more 
than the sun doth lose his light when he passeth to the 
other hemisphere. When a Bishop of a smaller circuit 



* " Mission and Jurisdiction." by Rev, T. J. Bailey. C. C. Coll. 
Cambridge, p. 2 f Lib. 4, Cap. i. ad fitt. 



JURIS Die TION, 1 3 3 

is advanced to a greater, he getteth not a larger power, 
but a larger subject whereupon he may exercise his power. 
And when a Bishop is deposed, he is not absolutely de- 
prived of his power, but the matter is taken away upon 
which his power should work." 

The question of real difficulty in the matter of jurisdic- 
tion is how the charge of people, as Hooker expresses it ; 
or the matter upon which power should work, as Mason 
puts it ; or, in other words, the lawful localization of the 
universal mission, is determined. 

" There are but three ways, laying aside the compara- 
tively modern and positively extravagant claims of the 
Papacy, in which the jurisdiction of a Bishop can be 
established ; viz., either by the assignment of the Bishops 
by whose consent he is consecrated, or by the choice of 
clergy and people, or by the sanction of the civil au- 
thority ruling over the district in which he is to be 
settled. 

" In the earliest times those who conferred the Epis- 
copal office assigned the district in which it was to be 
exercised ;* and as this would be necessary in planting 
the Church among the heathen, so it would always be 
lawful where such assignment did not interfere with a 
previous settlement made by competent authority. 

" In later times elections prevailed, sometimes by clergy 
or people, and sometimes by clergy and people together. 
And because this, in the times of the Roman Empire, 
led to turbulence, and in some sad cases to riot, and even 
bloodshed, the emperors seem to have taken to themselves 
the right to appoint to dioceses ; and thus the right 

* " For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in 
order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as 
I had appointed thee." — St. Paul's Epistle lo Titus, i. 5. 



134 ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. 

came to be claimed and exercised generally in Christian 
countries by the civil authority." * 

The idea of mission to a specified place being deter- 
mined by those who had taken order for consecration, 
seems to have been very plainly recognized in the twenty- 
sixth of the Apostolic Canons, where it is provided that if 
the people of a place for which a Bishop should have been 
consecrated should refuse to receive him, the Presbyters 
should be excommunicated for not having better taught 
them their duty.f 

In the Church of England there is (formally) a com- 
bination of the two later modes of election and appoint- 
ment by the civil authority. There is an election by the 
Chapter of the Cathedral of a vacant diocese, but not 
until the chapter has received from the Crown the conge 
d'eslwe, or leave to elect, that permission being accom- 
panied with a letter missive specifying the person whom 
they are permitted to elect. 

In the American Church there is an election, in the 
manner prescribed by the Convention of the vacant 
diocese, composed of clergy and laity,J; coupled with the 
requirement of the consent of the representatives of the 
other dioceses, as well as of the House of Bishops. § 

These are but instances. " It is manifest," says Arch- 
bishop Potter, after a discussion of the subject, " that 



* Sermon on the one hundredth anniversary of the election of 
Bishop Seabmy, Feast of the Annunciation, 1883, by W. J. Seabury, 
Cf. " A View of the Elections of Bishops in the Primitive Church," 
by a Presbyter of the Church of Scotland, Edinburgh, 1728 — probably 
the learned Dr. Thomas Rattray, sometime Bishop of Uunkeld, 

f Fulton's " Index Canonum," p. 91, ed. 1892. 

\ Constitution, art. iv. 

§ Digest of Canons, Title I. Canon 19. 



JURISDICTION. T35 

the consent of the metropolitan and the majority of the 
com-provincial Bishops was then (in the time of the 
Council of Nice) required to the appointment of any 
Bishop before he could be ordained. And in the following 
ages, when the popular elections of Bishops occasioned 
tumults which sometimes ended not without open acts 
of violence and even bloodshed, to remedy this incon- 
venience, in some places the clergy, in others the 
emperors, named the Bishops. From all which together 
we may conclude that the power of appointing Bishops 
and Church officers to exercise their functions in par- 
ticular districts is a thing of a mixed nature, and has 
never been wholly and constantly appropriated to any 
one sort of men, whether clergy or laity, but was lodged 
sometimes in one hand, and sometimes in another, as the 
times and other circumstances would best bear."* 

It is always to be remembered, however, that whatever 
circumstances may concur to determine the field of work, 
the whole authority comes from the Church. A Bishop 
may be elected by the clergy and people of a diocese, or 
appointed thereto by the civil authority, but neither from 
this election nor appointment does his spiritual jurisdic- 
tion proceed. That election or appointment merely 
designates the field in which the Church gives the Bishop 
authority to minister. Therefore, in addition to election 
or appointment, or their equivalents, there is necessary 
some authoritative act of the Church, expressive of the 
approval of the Church. The ordination of a Bishop to 
a diocese to which he had been elected or appointed 
would, in the absence of any legal provision to the 
contrary, be sufficient to express that approval. But in 



* "Discourse on Church Government," ch. v. pt. iv., ad fin. 



136 ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. 

later times this is generally expressed in a distinct pro- 
ceeding ; as in England, after the process of election, 
there is a process called confirmation, by which that 
election is ratified by the ecclesiastical authority.* This 
process is directed by statute, but at the same time has 
an authority independent of Parliament, being both by 
common and canon law the rightful act of the Archbishop 
of each province. f After the election is duly confirmed, 
consecration confers the full jurisdiction. 

The jurisdiction of a Bishop elect and confirmed, but 
not yet consecrated, is, in the English system, that which 
relates to the management of diocesan affairs, and 
which, sede vaca?ite, resides in the Chapter. J In the 
American system, though there is by canonical provision 
a process analogous to confirmation,§ yet it confers no 
jurisdiction. Jurisdiction over diocesan affairs sede 
vaca?ite belongs, in that system, to some extent, to the 
Standing Committees which are elected from year to year 
by the diocesan conventions, and which are in this 
respect somewhat analogous to the English Chapters. 
But such jurisdiction exists only because, and in so far 
as, the canons confer it ; although it continues up to the 
time of the consecration of the Bishop-elect. || When the 
Cathedral system is fully reestablished and reorganized 
in the several dioceses, it may perhaps be found con- 
venient to associate this kind of jurisdiction with that 
system ; but in the meantime it canonically belongs, 
under canonical limitations, to the Standing Committees. 



* Hook's "Church Dictionary," title. Confirmation. 

\ Gilson's " Codex," i. 128 n. 

\ Bailey, "Jurisdiction and Mi>sion," pp. 19-21. 

§ Digest, Title I. Canon ig. 

I Digest, Title III. Canon 2, § iii. 



JURISDICTION. 137 

Episcopal jurisdiction, strictly so called, or spiritual 
jurisdiction, is not received until the election thus ratified 
is followed by consecration. So that in fact spiritual 
jurisdiction is conferred by the Church in Ordination, 
whatever circumstances may concur to determine the 
field within which it is to be exercised. And this 
authority still flows from the Church, although, in cir- 
cumstances accepted and allowed by the Church, the 
field or diocese should be changed by translation or 
other process. 

This spiritual jurisdiction is to be carefully distin- 
guished from coercive jurisdiction. The spiritual juris- 
diction is only in for conscientiae. The Bishop rules in 
right of his office only by the conscience of his subjects, 
and not by force. But if the civil power add its authority 
to his appointment to a special field, he has there also 
a jurisdiction in foro contentioso^ even over the unwilling ; 
and rules, according to the extent to which the civil 
authority supports him, by the power of the civil arm.* 

The Bishops of the Church of England have by their 
office and station at different times exercised various 
powers which they received from the civil authority, but 
which were for that reason not properly Episcopal but 
really civil powers, intrusted to them by the State for 
State purposes. Their successors in the United States 
have neither had nor needed such additions. The purely 
spiritual jurisdiction is all that they possess or claim. 
They rule by the conscience of their subjects, and not by 
force ; but in a case where force was necessary to the due 
effect of a sentence which the Bishop had a right to 
render, and which was essential to the well being of the 

* On the history and limits of the Bishops' temporal jurisdiction in 
England, see Hook's "Church Dictionary," \\\\^, Jurisdiction. 



13^ ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. 

Church, it is presumed that recourse might be had to the 
civil courts. Any aid which might be granted in such a 
case, however, would be purely the result of the exercise 
of the civil or temporal power, and would be granted 
merely on the principle that the civil authority would 
secure the just rights of any society which by the laws of 
the country was entitled to exist within its limits. 

And to view the matter from the opposite point, the 
exercise of Episcopal jurisdiction in the way of discipline 
must always take into account the privilege possessed by 
individual members of the Church to resort to the civil 
courts for the protection of civil rights impaired by such 
discipline. So with regard to the tenure of property by 
the Church, and the preservation of trusts and endow^- 
ments for Church purposes, the ecclesiastical authority 
does not extend to the independent determination of the 
rights involved, but such rights are determined entirely 
by the laws of the State as applied by judicial tribunals, 
though in some cases the statutes require the consent of 
the authorities of the Church in order to the disposition 
of property held in trust for Church purposes. 

It is evident that in the application of the distinction 
between the properly Episcopal spiritual jurisdiction and 
the properly civil coercive jurisdiction many complicated 
cases and questions may arise. It involves, after all, the 
issue between the Church and the State, which has 
been contested with alternate encroachments on one side 
or the other ever since the Roman emperors embraced 
Christianity. There are, however, certain principles the 
observance of which must greatly facilitate the proper 
disposition of particular cases which appear to involve 
such complication, at least so far as the Church in the 
United States is concerned. In the first place it is to be 



JURISDICTION. 139 

observed that the Church is regarded by the laws of this 
country as a purely voluntary association, consisting of 
men who combine themselves together for religious pur- 
poses. Their right so to combine themselves results 
generally from the liberty of association among men for 
any purpose not contrary to law, and particularly from 
the constitutional provisions which withdraw from the 
legislative authority the power to make laws concerning 
the establishment of religion or restraining the freedom 
of the conscience. So long as these associations confine 
themselves to the exercise of religion and do not make 
their profession of religion a cover for immorality or 
licentiousness, the State has nothing whatever to say to 
them. 

When, however, these associations desire to acquire 
property, it is manifest that property held by them must 
be subject to the same rule as property held by associa- 
tions for other than religious purposes, or by individuals. 
The State then takes notice of such associations and 
prescribes the rules by which their members may incor- 
porate themselves into particular societies having the 
right to hold and use property. 

But such corporations are in general associated not 
only together among themselves, but also with others of 
a larger division or group professing religion in the same 
way and on the same principles ; hence the property 
which they acquire is not merely to be disposed of for 
the use of the corporators, but is regarded as a trust for 
the preservation of those principles and the perpetuation 
of a certain mode of worship. The State, therefore, takes 
notice of the use which such corporations make of their 
property, and the laws prevent the alienation or disposi- 
tion of that property for purposes foreign to the trust. 



140 ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. 

This principle involves the right of judicial tribunals to 
determine whether in a particular case the use of property 
conforms to the purposes for which it has been acquired, 
and this involves the right of determining judicially what 
those principles and rules are to which conformity is due. 
Whether the faith and order of the Church have been 
observed in a particular case by a corporation or a 
minister, is a question of fact, and in order to the decision 
of it the court must determine, as a matter of fact, what 
that faith and order are. But the decision, obviously, is 
not an attempt on the part of the civil authority to pre- 
scribe what that faith and order ought to be, but a deter- 
mination of the fact whether in a certain case they have 
been duly observed. 

The same jurisdiction which the State exercises in re- 
gard to the proper discharge of a trust is also exercised 
in the protection of individual rights growing out of 
membership or office in a Church. With the mere rights 
of membership or office in an ecclesiastical society the 
State does not concern itself, leaving to such societies 
the power to establish their own laws, and maintain their 
own usages, and prescribe their own terms of admission 
to membership or office, or the conditions of the con- 
tinued tenure of either. But in so far as such relations 
involve rights of property, or subsistence, or reputation, 
the State is concerned ; and the individual who has by 
the action of ecclesiastical authorities been injured in his 
civil rights will be sustained in his resort to the civil 
courts for redress. This is not on the ground that the 
State has jurisdiction over the Church, but on the ground 
that it has jurisdiction to maintain the civil rights of its 
citizens as well when they are members of the Church as 
when they are not. 



JURISDICTION. 141 

When a clergyman, for example, is sentenced to sus- 
pension or deposition from office, that sentence involves 
his deprivation of means of subsistence, as well as dam- 
age to his reputation. If the sentence is unjustly given, 
the courts will not uphold it, and will afford redress. 
But in determining the question of justice or injustice 
in such a sentence, the courts will not consider the case 
abstractly on its merits, but only with particular view to 
the right of the ecclesiastical court under the laws of 
its own body to pass such sentence. This proceeds upon 
the theory that the tenure of office in the society implies 
a contract with that society to deal with its officers ac- 
cording to its laws. If those laws have been observed 
by which the man has consented to be bound, he has 
nothing to complain of. If they have been contravened, 
his contract has not been fulfilled, and the injured person 
has ground of civil action. 

" The true principle," says a great master,* " seems to 
be this, that when a man has once been recognized by 
any ecclesiastical body as one of its ministers, he cannot 
be arbitrarily dismissed, to the injury of his civil rights. 
He may be dismissed with his own consent, or he may 
be dismissed according to the laws of the body to which 
he belongs ; that is, he may be dismissed with his ab- 
solute consent or with his conditional consent. For, by 
accepting the position, he has given his consent to the 
laws which regulate that position, and consequently to 
his own removal according to those laws. He has, 
nevertheless, a right to call on the civil tribunals to 
inquire whether those laws have been observed. But 



* Dr. Hugh Davey Evans, of Maryland, quoted by Rev. Dr. Hall 
Harrison in a very valuable pamphlet discussing this question (1879). 



142 ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. 

they are not to try the case over again, or to act as 
courts of appeal from the decision of the ecclesiastical 
court. The duty of the civil court is to see that the 
ecclesiastical court had, according to the ecclesiastical 
laws, jurisdiction over the case, and proceeded fairly 
according to those laws. These are the principles upon 
which American courts have generally acted. They 
were fully recognized by the courts of the State of New 
York, in the case of Walker against Wainwright, which 
was the most remarkable one connected with this subject 
that has occurred in America."* 



* The New York case of Walker v, Wainwright, above cited, is 
reported i6 Barbour, 486 ; cf. also the case of Chase v, Cheney, 58 
Illinois. The student will find some intelligent observations on the 
relations of Church and State in the American system, by Dr. H. 
von Hoist, in his work on "The Constitutional Law of the United 
States of America," Mason's edition, Chicago, 1887, pp. 314-321. 



POWERS CEDED. 143 



PROPOSITION XX. 

The principle that the supreme power of the Apostolic or 
Episcopal Office is to be exercised with due regard to 
the inferior members of the Body of Christ, sanctions 
the institution and development of systems of Polity in 
particular Churches and under peculiar circumstances, 
whereby a certain kind and degree of authority are vested 
in the body governed. 

Besides those powers which belong to the Church as 
a spiritual society, there are others which belong to it 
as a society of men. The former powers are wholly 
lodged in the Ministry, and primarily in the Episcopate.* 
They are exercised for the salvation of souls, and though 
their exercise implies a cooperating consent in the persons 
upon whom they are brought to bear — as do all the gifts 
of Divine grace to the individual — yet they are not 
lodged in those for whose benefit they are designed, but 
are ministered to them by those who hold them in trust 
for that purpose. 

The latter powers partake more of the nature of those 
of the civil government, and relate to the management 
of the temporal interests of the Church as a society. The 
relation of the body to the State in which it dwells ; the 
acquisition and regulation of property ; the conduct of its 



* The powers of the Church enumerated by Archbishop Potter 
are the Powers of Preaching, of Prayer, of Baptizing, of Confirmation, 
of Consecrating the Eucharist, of Ordaining, of Making Canons, of 
Jurisdiction, and of Receiving Maintenance ; the consideration of 
these powers forms the topic of the fifth chapter of his discourse on 
"Church Government." 



144 ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. 

members in respect to matters not provided for by Divine 
law, furnish occasion for the exercise of powers of gov- 
ernment not essentially of a spiritual nature. Yet these 
powers being necessary to the government of the Church 
as a society, and the Church being by Divine appoint- 
ment a society with a regular order of governors, it follows 
that these powers, as well as those which are purely spir- 
itual, belong to that order of governors. 

This kind of power partakes also of the nature of civil 
power in the mode of its exercise ; being in so far com- 
pulsory as to subject those who disobey these temporal 
regulations to the deprivation of such temporal privi- 
leges as may be incident to membership in the Church. 
And the exercise of this kind of power implies the con- 
sent of the governed at least so far as this, that no man 
can be compelled to continue his active membership in 
the Church against his will. As long, however, as such 
membership continues, so long the obligation to obedi- 
ence continues. 

The power of making laws, and the power of declaring 
and enforcing or executing laws, are powers of the 
Church lodged primarily in the Episcopate ; but in 
different times and places they have been to a greater or 
less degree ceded to the body governed, or recognized 
and allowed in certain members of it, so that their exer- 
cise is shared between the Bishops and the inferior 
clergy, and sometimes also with representatives of the 
laity. 

Very early the precedent was established of formulating 
certain principles upon which government should hence- 
forth be administered; e.g., the rules adopted in the 
council of Acts xv., limiting the exactions to be made 
of Gentile converts. The ancient canons, too, adopted 



POWERS CEDED. 145 

by Episcopal action, largely limit the exercise of Epis- 
copal authority ; so that these canons not only impose 
duties upon the governed, but also serve as the charter 
of rights granted to them. Nor can we imagine the 
exercise of the imperial power upon the affairs of the 
Church, and of the royal power which in the breaking up 
of the Empire succeeded toit, to have been recognized 
and allowed by the Episcopate as emanating from a 
source exterior to the Church ; but rather as proceeding 
from within, being the expression of the will of those 
who, although rulers in the State, were yet, in theory at 
least, on general principles, subordinate members of the 
Church. The expression of this will has throughout 
subsequent history, and notably in the Church of Eng- 
land, been the exponent of the influence of the lay 
element, or body of the Church, as distinguished from 
its successive Episcopal rulers.* And when^ in the course 
of Divine Providence, the civil authority in the United 
States, laying aside all semblance of royalty, laid aside 
also what had among all Christian nations before been 
regarded as a duty on the part of Christian princes — to 
use the power which they held in trust for the people, 
in influencing the management of affairs for the Church 
— and took a position altogether external to the Church, 
it is not remarkable, but altogether what might have 
been expected, that the body of the people within the 
Church should speak for themselves in regard to such 
affairs. Nor is there anything more unchurchly or 
unbecoming in the deference and consideration shown 
by the authorities of the Church to its subordinate mem- 

* The student will find valuable thoughts in this connection in 
the preface to Dr. Samuel Seabury's "Continuity of the Church of 
England." 
19 



146 ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. 

bers under these republican circumstances, than under 
the circumstances of imperialism and royalty. 

To recognize and formulate certain principles of gov- 
ernment ; to provide checks to prevent rulers from dis- 
regarding these principles ; to require the proposal of 
measures before they can be insisted on ; to arrange 
methods of representation as means of obtaining con- 
sent of large numbers of men — are legitimate exercises 
of human policy. And when these measures are reduced 
to a system by customary administration or by legislative 
action, they affect the polity of the particular Churches 
in which they are adopted. So that the government of 
the rulers of these Churches must be exercised in certain 
methods, and with certain restictrions, which are indeed 
of human and not of Divine authority, but which, never- 
theless, rest upon sound principles of policy and morals, 
and which cannot consistently with good faith be dis- 
regarded. 

Thus the possession of powers of government in the 
Church by others than its Divinely appointed governors 
may be accounted for, and to some extent sustained, by 
the principle that the government of the Church should 
be by love and consent, rather than arbitrary and co- 
ercive. To expect the consent of individuals to measures 
of individual discipline would of coarse be visionary and 
absurd. But to procure the consent of the body to gen- 
eral rules which shall be applicable to each individual is 
practicable, and moreover wise, as insuring the moral 
support of the whole body to the lawful requirements of 
its governors. 

This is the essential idea of constitutional liberty, the 
glory and blessing of modern civilization, so far as civil 
government is concerned ; and for the effective applica- 



POWERS CEDED. 147 

tion of this idea, modern civilization is largely indebted 
to the Christian Church. 

It is obvious, however, that the distribution of power 
which results from the application of this idea, may some- 
times be carried too far ; and the inherent and inalienable 
powers of the Ministry, as to matters purely spiritual, 
maybe seriously hindered in their exercise, if not usurped, 
by those who are properly the objects of those powers. 
Moreover, it is possible that the effectiveness of the gov- 
ernment of the Church, even over its temporalities, may 
be marred by too wide a divergence from the simplicity 
of the original institution of Church government, which, 
however republican in regard to the Church as a whole, 
is yet, in its original diocesan aspect, monarchical ; though 
it may be remarked, in passing, that the republican 
aspect of the Church on earth, as a whole, results only 
from the invisibility of its Divine Head. Viewed in con- 
nection with Him, it still appears as the Kingdom. 

In view of the tendency in the United States to the 
subordination of the diocesan to the congregational idea 
of government, and to the relegation of the Bishops to 
the position of mere executives of conventional law, it 
has been thought — and possibly may be admitted — that 
the Church has somewhat suffered by too much conces- 
sion to the principle of government by consent, and the 
too extensive distribution of power resulting therefrom. 
Nevertheless, the purpose of the system having been 
from the beginning the blessing of a " free, valid, and 
purely ecclesiastical Episcopacy," which should be able 
in the exercise of its spiritual powers to impart the treas- 
ures of grace and truth to the members of Christ, with- 
out temptation to encroach in any respect upon their 
Christian liberty — from which temptation it must be con- 



148 ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. 

fessed that some of the successors of the Apostles had 
not hitherto been wholly exempt — and the advantage of 
the system having been so great as it has been, in respect 
of the benefit to its counsels from the practical wisdom 
of the laity, and the reservation to the Episcopate of 
the ultimate voice upon all authoritative action, it would 
be unreasonable to expect to enjoy such privilege with- 
out some corresponding disadvantage. Omnis commoditas 
sua fert incommoda secum. 

Even a true theory, moreover, cannot be worked with- 
out regard to fact ; and the participation on the part of 
the body governed in the power of the governors is in 
this instance . a fact, and one which cannot be changed 
by any individual or party action. Every Bishop must 
administer his office not only on the principle of its 
inherent powers, but also under the limitations of such 
concessions as are involved in acceptance of office under 
expressed and settled conditions, so long as these con- 
cessions lie within the range of expediency, and do not 
contravene the Divine will. Such changes as may be 
needed in the administration of the government of the 
Church must be brought about by the gradual process 
of educating the body of the Church to a return to more 
churchly ideas, rather than by the revolutionary process 
of applying to modern cases the requirements and pen- 
alties of the stricter discipline of primitive times. 



THE FEDERAL IDEA. 149 



PROPOSITION XXI. 

The gift of the same powers, for the same purposes, to the 
several incumbents of the Apostolic office, involves the 
principle of federation among equals for mutual counsel 
and cooperation in the government of the Church in their 
respective spheres. 

If the authority of the Apostolic office be lodged in 
the whole number of its incumbents without discrimina- 
tion or preference, each one has his undivided equal 
share of that authority ; according to the famous maxim 
of Cyprian : Episcopatus unus est, cujus a singulis in 
solidum pars tenetur. 

But if each one has his undivided equal share of the 
whole authority, it must follow that the common expres- 
sion of that authority involves the federation or agree- 
ment of each one with the others in order to that 
expression. 

With respect to his fellow Bishops, the individual 
cannot use his undivided share of authority as equivalent 
to the whole. In his individual sphere he acts alone, as 
representing the whole authority in that sphere ; but in 
the expression or determination of limitations, or quali- 
fications of that authority, or in the definition of the faith 
in common received, and to be in common witnessed to 
and guarded, and by each one imparted and admin- 
istered, the consent or agreement of the individual with 
others, or his acceptance of the consent or agreement of 
others, involves his union with them in a common league 
or federation, the object of which is mutual counsel and 
cooperation, and in which each one is under obligation 



ISO ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. 

to contribute his own judgment and will, and to accept 
the judgment and will of the whole body.* 

If we suppose a number of individuals, each one 
possessed within his own sphere of a sovereign power 
of supreme government, acting as one body in mutual 
counsel and cooperation for the benefit of all, we recog- 
nize in such joint or common action a league or federa- 
tion between the members of the body. It may, or may 
not, be that these individual rulers are under obligation, 
of one kind or another, to associate themselves together 
for common action. The fact that they have the power 
to act individually, and that they do voluntarily act 
together, is what constitutes their federation. It is true 
that Christ's commission imposes an obligation upon the 
Bishops to act in common, but, inasmuch as the nature of 
their authority is such as to presuppose the power of in- 
dividual action in direct responsibility to Christ alone, 
the common action can only be by consent and voluntary 
agreement, which is federation. Every individual Bishop 
holding an entire share of the power of his order is able 
to exercise it independently of all others similarly com- 



* The observation of the learned Bishop Beveridge as to what is 
to be taken as the voice of the Church Universal, would equally 
apply to the voice of the united Episcopate either as a whole, or in 
such groups as might act together in any portion of the Church — 
" In omnibus enim societatibus, qualis est ecclesia, pars major prseju- 
dicat minori, et jus integri obtinere solet. Quod major pars curicr, 
inquit jus civile, efficit, pro eo habetur ac si omnes egerint. Imo 
quidem haec inter communes juris illius regulas habetur. Refertur 
ad universos, quod publice fit per majorem partem. Quod itaque 
vel a majori parte statuitur, aut affirmatur, illud ecclesise universali 
jure adscribendum est : multo magis quod conjunctis omnium vel 
pene omnium testimoniis munitur." — Beveridge, Codex Canonum, 
etc., Prcemium iv. 



THE FEDERAL IDEA. 151 

missioned ; and if he waive this ability in deference to 
the will of Christ, and act only in conjunction with the 
others, the action is voluntary, and the common action of 
all similarly situated has an essentially federate character. 
" It remains now," said Cyprian, after proposing a case 
for the consideration of a council of Bishops over which 
he was presiding, " that every one of us speak his own 
sense of this matter, neither judging any man, nor reject- 
ing him from our communion for dissenting from us, for 
none of us does make himself a Bishop of Bishops, or 
force his colleagues to a necessity of complying with him 
by any tyrannical terror, since every Bishop has full 
power to determine for himself, and can no more be 
judged by others than he can judge them. But let us 
all wait for the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who 
alone has power to make us governors of His Church, 
and to call us to account for our administration."* An 
exhortation which plainly discloses such a conception of 
the joint or common action of the Episcopate as implies 
the agreement or consent of its individual members ; 
there being, as the same venerable Father expressed it 
on another occasion, " One Episcopacy diffused in many 
Bishops agreeing with one another." f 

The importance of this consideration to a correct 
understanding of the relation of the individual Bishop to 
the Episcopate of which he is a member, is very great. 
The subject is sometimes treated as if the individual 
Bishop were to be regarded as deriving his authority 
from the Episcopate ; or, to put it in other wdrds, as if 



* Concil. Carthag., inter opera Cypr., p. 158. Cited by Potter, 
p. 185, "Church Government," ed. 1753. 

f " Episcopatus unus, Episcoporum multorum concordi numerosi- 
tate diffusus." — Ep. Iv. Cited by Potter, p. 406. 



$5^ ECCLESIASTICAL POLL TV. 

Christ constituted the college, and the college consti- 
tuted its successive members. Yet so to speak involves 
the gravest misconception, and leads to serious con- 
fusion in the understanding of many dependent ques- 
tions. The Episcopate is indeed one, diffused in many- 
members throughout the world. But the unity consists 
in the gift to each member of the powers of the same 
office ; and every incumbent of that office holds its whole 
power in trust for the fulfilment of the will of Christ in 
perpetuity — that is, with the power of transmitting this 
trust to successors of his own appointment. The inde- 
pendent exercise of this power by one incumbent in 
opposition to the rest, would be manifestly contrary to 
the terms of the joint commission, and would mar the 
unity in which the office was established ; and the 
Church, carrying out the terms of this commission, has 
always repudiated such individualism. But the Episco- 
pate is, nevertheless, constituted by the powers conferred 
upon its members ; and the subordination of the indi- 
vidual to the body is due, not to a power conferred upon 
the body to rule the members, but to the fact that the 
same power conferred upon all the members of the same 
body for the same purpose, implies, in matters requir- 
ing it, their united action — which depends upon their 
consent.* 

Clearly in accord with this view is the evidence af- 

* The Rev. Dr. Wilson, in his learned and thoughtful essay on 
"The Provincial System" (pp. 71-73), understands the passage, St. 
Matt, xviii. 19, 20, to refer to matters of official power and determi- 
nation, regarding the words as spoken to the Apostles, and not gen- 
erally to the body of the faithful. There is the strongest probability 
that this interpretation is correct. Dr. Wilson applies the passage 
so interpreted to the provincial system, regarding it as the charter of 
that system. And if by this is intended the settlement by the Divine 



THE FEDERAL IDEA. 153 

forded by the Scriptures that original incumbents of 
this office acted upon the principle that each one in his 
own sphere was the exponent of its whole power, even 
to the extent of perpetuation. Certainly such was the 
case with St. Paul ; and, so far as the nature of his 
authority is concerned, he is not to be distinguished 
from the other Apostles. And although the tacit assent 
of the college to their actions is to be presumed, yet 
nothing shows that they derived from it the authority to 
exercise the power of their office, or needed to have 
recourse to it, except in the way of counsel and de- 
termination of matters of doubt ; the decision being 
reached, in the case most particularly recorded, after 
much disputation and free expression.* There is one 
instance recorded in which two Apostles are sent by the 
college on a special mission ; f which implies, indeed, 
the subordination of the individual to the college, but by 
no means excludes the idea of agreement or consent in 
order to the determination of common action ; nor do 
the other instances of the action of the body, as a 
whole, exclude this idea ; \ but they do, on the other 
hand, manifestly presuppose it. 

And if we may take ecclesiastical tradition and history 
into account, which is the more allowable because the 
Scriptures are silent in regard to the greater number of 
the Apostles, we find increased evidence of this inde- 



Founder of the principle of association among the incumbents of 
the Apostolic Office — and further it would seem impossible, in any 
view, to press it — the application must be admitted to be rightly 
made. It is, in the present connection, proper to note that the 
principle of pssociation, as stated by our Lord, is that of agree- 
ment. " If two of you shall agree" etc. 

* Acts, XV. I Acts, viii. 14. % Acts, i. 15-26, vi. 1-7. 



154 ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. 

pendent exercise of official power ; insomuch that the 
conviction deepens, that the intent of the Founder of the 
system was that each one whom He commissioned 
should be to the Church which he in his place should 
establish, what Christ in His place had been to the 
Church over which He Himself had presided — that 
being the pattern of all the others ; and that the Church 
as a whole should thus be constituted — not out of the 
mass of His disciples throughout the world, called 
together and ruled by one imperial power mediating 
between the Head Invisible and the Apostles whom He 
had commissioned, but of a combination of many 
Churches, each one complete in itself, and governed by 
its own Apostle, who, exercising in his own sphere the 
supreme authority which he had received from Christ, 
deferred to the college ; not because he derived author- 
ity from it, but on the principle of unity, and because it 
was involved in the common possession of the same 
power for the same purpose that the judgment of one 
should, in matters requiring counsel and cooperation, 
be subordinate to the judgment of the whole. With this 
conception, we get an insight into the primitive view of 
the Episcopate, indicated by the familiar quotations 
from Ignatius, such as that exhorting the faithful to 
regard the Bishop as in the place of God, and the Pres- 
byters as in the room of the Apostles, which upon any 
other theory we shall miss. 

And it is certainly very significant to observe, in this 
connection, that in the history of the Church a very con- 
siderable period elapses between the facts recorded in 
the Scriptures from which we justly infer the subordina- 
tion of the individual to the college, and facts which 
indicate a recognition on the part of their successors in 



THE FEDERAL IDEA. 155 

office of a similar subordination. Considering the spe- 
cial presence of the Holy Ghost with the first Apostles, 
and the greater need which their successors might be 
supposed to have for dependence upon their brethren, 
it is remarkable that the association of Bishops in the 
way of councils, in which the authority of the indi- 
vidual was subordinated to that of his brethren in the 
same office, does not at once appear. It may, perhaps, 
be accounted for by the unsettled state of their times, 
making such gatherings inconvenient; and their prox- 
imity to the tradition of the Apostles might make these 
early Bishops feel the need of mutual counsel and co- 
operation with each other, less than they felt the need, 
each one in his own diocese, of the counsel and co- 
operation of those who were intrusted to their care. 
But however this may have been, the fact is that the 
first synods after the Apostles had passed away, and the 
only synods for many years afterward, were diocesan. 
These consisted of the Bishop of the diocese, with a 
certain number of his Presbyters, designated by him or 
elected by the body of the clergy as their representatives. 
" Each diocese, therefore," as Lathbury remarks in his 
'' History of Convocation," " in early times was inde- 
pendent, the Bishop and his council managing its affairs, 
subject, of course, to the Word of God and to the dis- 
cipline established by the Apostles. The decisions of 
diocesan synods were obligatory on all within the bound- 
aries of the diocese, having the force of ecclesiastical 
laws; nor did any other councils exist for many years 
after the first establishment of the Christian Church." * 



* Lathbury, "Hist. Con.," pp. 6, 7. Cf. also Kennett, " Eccl. 
Synods." 

" Touching the next point, how bishops together with presbyters 



156 ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. 

The individual Bishop, then, being independent in his 
own sphere, subject only to the common rule of faith and 
order, it may be presumed that if each one had been 
infallible, or supplied as the first Apostles were with the 
special guidance and direction of the Holy Spirit, he 
would certainly need no other recourse to external au- 
thority than the Apostles themselves had recognized in 
their own case. But the absence of such inerrancy 
would necessarily produce differences as to the just re- 
quirements of the common faith and order ; and doubtful 



have used to govern the Churches which were under them ; it is by 
Zonaras somewhat plainly and at large declared, that the bishop had 
his seat on high in the Church above the residue which were present ; 
that a number of presbyters did always there assist him ; and that in 
the oversight of the people, these presbyters were after a sort the 
bishop's coadjutors. The bishop and presbyters, who together with 
him governed the Church, are. for the most part by Ignatius jointly 
mentioned. In the epistle to them of Trallis, he saith of presbyters 
that they are 6viiifiovXoi xai dvvedpEvrai rov STtidnoTtov 
(counsellors and assistants of the bishop)." — Hooker, Book VII., ch. 
vii. I. 

"The presbyters," says Bingham, "were considered as a sort of 
Ecclesiastical Senate, or council to the bishop, who scarce did any- 
thing of great weight and moment without asking their advice, and 
taking their consent to give the greater power and authority to all 
public acts done in the name of the Church. Upon which account 
St. Chrysostom and Synesius style them the Court or Sanhedrim of 
the presbyters ; and Cyprian, the sacred and venerable bench of the 
clergy ; St. Jerome and others, the Church's Senate, and the Senate 
of Christ ; Origen, and the author of the ' Constitutions,' the bishop's 
counsellors and the Council of the Church ; because, though the 
bishop was prince and head of this Ecclesiastical Senate, and nothing 
could regularly be done without him, yet neither did he ordinarily 
do any public act relating to government or discipline of the Church 
without their advice and assistance." — Christian Antiq., Book II., 
ch. xix. 7. 



THE FEDERAL IDEA. I57 

questions, such as reached beyond single dioceses — 
affecting perhaps the whole Church, as in the case of 
heresies — would naturally make the need of such external 
authority more and more sensibly felt as time proceeded. 

But in the endeavor to make, or to discover, the pro- 
vision proper to such need, it is worth while to remember 
that these early Bishops were embarrassed by none of the 
theories which in later times have distressed, if not the 
Church, at least the student of Church polity. The civil 
authority, when it was not persecuting them, despised and 
neglected them ; and, of course, with all their conscious- 
ness of the duty, saving their allegiance to Christ, of 
obedience to the existing powers, they would never think 
of finding in them the supply of their need of an external 
and impartial authority. They were innocent of Papacy 
and Vicarage of Christ as the sole right of any one 
Bishop,* nor had they learned that the charge to St. 
Peter to feed his Master's sheep was a commission to 
feed His shepherds — much less to fleece and flay them. 
Nor is there room for any serious doubt of their being 
equally unconscious of a collegiate theory which con- 
ceives of the individual Bishop as the mere agent and 
deputy of the Episcopate ; and which, because the Catho- 
lic canons for the best of reasons required a plurality of 
consecrators, can form no idea of a perfect Church ex- 
cept as comprising Bishops enough to comply with the 
canonical requirement. 

Nor should one omit to take into account the obvious 
historical fact that the provincial system, with its precise 
and far-reaching regulation of the relation of the indi- 

* Every Bishop was anciently called Papa, Father, or Pope : so 
also they were all called Vicars of Christ. Bingham, "Christian 
Antiquities," Book II., ch. ii., ^§ 7, lo. 



158 ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. 

vidual Bishop to his brother Bishops had not yet come 
into being. 

Under these circumstances it would seem to be difficult 
for any one, who can put himself in the place of these men, 
to avoid the conviction that in the recourse of individual 
Bishops to the counsel and support of their brethren in 
the Episcopate, endued with the same powers and bur- 
dened with like cares and responsibilities, they simply 
adopted the most easy and effectual method of meeting 
the difficulties in which they found themselves, and one, 
also, for which a sufficient precedent and example was 
plainly furnished to them in the course pursued by their 
illustrious predecessors in office.* And it seems equally 
obvious, that, as their association with each other was 
entirely free and voluntary, and was the action of those 
who conceived of themselves, and were regarded by each 
other and by those of whom they had the oversight, as 
put in trust with a power of government which they held 
on their direct responsibility to Christ alone, they met as 
equals, -the expression of whose common authority de- 
rived its force and effect from the common consent which 
produced and accepted it. 

It is true, indeed, that the subsequent development of 
the provincial system brought with it the recognition of 



* " Cum ipsis enini Apostolis ad determinandam istam, quae in 
ecclesia recens nata exorta erat, de circumcisione et lege Mosaica 
Gentilibus imponenda, controversiam in synodo una conveiiire, et in 
ea Canonem sive ecclesiasticam de ista re legem sancire visum fuisset, 
hac iis praemonstrata via itum est ab omnibus ipsorum successoribus, 
sive episcopis, quibus ecclesise ulterius propagandae regendseque cura 
commissa fuit. Si qua enim quaestio de fide Christiani, vel de 
externa ecclesiae rite instituenda emersit, earn episcopi, Aposto- 
lorum more, in synodis congregati protinus determinare solebant. " — 
BEVERmGE, Codex Canomim, etc., Lib. I., cap. ii. p. 10. Ed. 1678. 



THE FEDERAL IDEA. 159 

distinctions between Bishops whereby for certain purposes 
one had precedence or primacy over others, and some 
again had a certain primacy, so to speak, over these 
primates. But, apart from the fact that such precedency 
involved no breach of the principle of equality in the 
substance of ofhcial authority, there was at the time in 
question nothing of this sort ; and this is notably evi- 
denced by the provision made by the canons called 
Apostolical, against inconveniences which were naturally 
incident to a state of equality, and to obviate the dangers 
to unity which would be apt to result from such inconven- 
iences. " It is necessary," says the Thirty-fourth Canon 
of this venerable collection, " that the Bishops of every 
nation should know him who is chief among them, and 
should recognize him as their head by doing nothing of 
great moment without his consent, and that each of them 
should do such things only as pertain to his own parish 
and the districts under him. And neither let him (who 
is chief) do anything without the consent, of all, for thus 
shall there be unity of heart, and thus shall God be glori- 
fied through our Lord Jesus Christ, even the Father 
through the Lord in the Holy Ghost ; [that is] the 
Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost." * 

This collection, being assigned according to the best 
judgment to the end of the second or the beginning of 
the third century, gives, in the canon cited, very clear 
evidence that up to this period there were no recognized 
distinctions among Bishops, or, at least, that there was 
needed the settlement of some principle of precedency, 
the propriety of some distinction in order to the preser- 
vation of unity among equals having become manifest ; 



* Fulton's " Index Canonum," p. 91. 



i6o ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. 

and furnishes, moreover, a hint not altogether obscure, 
that association among Bishops which called for such 
distinction was not then unknown. It would be most 
natural to understand this as referring to meetings of 
Bishops in council, and as indicating that the Bishops 
had by this time learned to follow the Apostolic example 
in this respect. And of this the Thirty-seventh Canon 
furnishes clearer evidence.* And that these councils of 
Bishops, whenever, then or afterward, held, involved, 
within the range of the Episcopal representation, the 
subordination of the individual Bishop to the Episcopate 
so represented, and acting within the common rule of 
faith and order, is not to be denied. But such subordi- 
nation was not that of a subject to his sovereign, but that 
of one sovereign to a federation of sovereigns. 

It is to be repeated, that the gift of the same powers 
for the same purposes to all the incumbents of an office, 
involves the entire and equal authority of each, and that 
neither derives authority from the combination of all, but 
that the combination, in so far as it may exist, has its 
joint authority in matters requiring counsel and coopera- 
tion, from the consent and acceptance of those who 
compose it. 

If the case be otherwise, and if there was established 
by Christ an authority to be exercised by right of inher- 
ent sovereignty over its individual members, it would be 
an authority external in the sense of being superior to 
the commission to the Apostles, and would require to be 
established by such proof as we would demand in order 
to the admission of the overruling power of the civil 
magistrate in spiritual concerns, or of the supremacy of 



Fulton's " Index Canonum," p. 91, 



THE FEDERAL IDEA. 'i6i 

some individual vicar of Christ; and the proof would need, 
moreover, to establish the right of some fewer number of 
Bishops to act on occasion in the place of the whole 
number, or as a substitute for this when the whole num- 
ber was not to be had : for unless this could be proved 
there would be, to say the least, a singular discrepancy 
between the will of Christ for the government of His 
Church, and the facts of history ; since there is no 
instance in history in which this body of the Episcopate 
has emerged to assert its authority over its individual 
members since the time of the Apostles. Numerous 
councils there have indeed been, and profound and last- 
ing are the obligations of the Church to many of them ; 
but that any of these, even those called General, and to 
which we owe the greatest reverence, comprised the 
whole of the existing Episcopate, is what probably no one 
will affirm, and the only ground upon which this imper- 
fect portion of the Episcopate can be recognized as hav- 
ing the authority of the whole is that its action has been 
assented to and accepted by those who were not present 
with it, which plainly indicates the nature of the obliga- 
tion imposed. 

What is, in fact, true, is that the Bishops of the Church, 
recognizing, in the free agency of their responsibility to 
Christ, their need of mutual counsel and cooperation for 
the better discharge of that authority with which they 
were all equally intrusted, have, from time to time, asso- 
ciated themselves with their brethren, in greater or less 
numbers, within wider or narrower limits, and have ac- 
cepted the determinations of such associations as impos- 
ing an obligation upon them in the regulation of their 
own government in their several spheres. It remains, 
then, that we accept the authority of councils according 
II 



i62 ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. 

to their range and extent, as based upon the federal con- 
sent and agreement of those who compose them, or who, 
being within the scope of their united jurisdiction, accept 
them as in accordance with the fundamental laws of 
Christ's kingdom. 

It would, however, be leaving this discussion seriously- 
incomplete in view of modern developments if we failed 
to take into account the proportion or analogy between 
the relation of the individual Bishop to the Episcopate, 
and the relation of the Diocese to the Church. The time 
has passed when we can say, as Bishop Beveridge, follow- 
ing Vincentius Lirinensis, puts it, that in the endeavor to 
ascertain the general voice or expressed judgment of the 
Church we need not inquire as to the laity, but only as 
to the Bishops, and, to some extent, as to the clergy 
also.* Whether it be due to the more general culture of 
modern times, or to the wider prevalence, in matters of 
civil interest, of the doctrine of the sovereignty of the 
people, or to whatever cause, the fact is that the laity 



* " Etiamsi enim singulorum per omnes aetates Christianorum 
sententias nobis transtnissas non habeamus, habemus tamen quod 
tantidem est. Primo etenim ubi de univeisali Ecclesise consensu 
loquimur, baud necesse est, ut ad plebis etiam sive Laicorum 
opiniones respiciamus ; Illi enim ad judicium de doctrina aut disci- 
plina Ecclesise ferendum nunquam admissi fuerunt ; quippe quos 
pastorum suorum sententias in omnibus, ut par est, sequi, non praeire 
semper prsesumptum est. . . . Hinc itaque consensionem Ec- 
clesiae non e populo sed ex Episcoporum, e Magistris et Sacerdotibus 
petendam esse. Vincentius Lirinensis recte olim observavit. . . . 
Neque enim in omnibus quae unquam de istiusmodi rebus celebrata 
sunt concilliis, quempiam e plebe decretis subscripsisse legimus, 
omnia vero per singulas setates communia Ecclesiae negotia per solos 
Episcopos et nonnuUos subinde presbyteros, Episcoporum suorum 
loca tenentes in concilliis transacta sunt." — Beveridge, "Codex 
Canonum," etc.. proemium iv. 



THE FEDERAL IDEA. 1 63 

are, and for a century or more have been, distinctly 
recognized as a factor in matters of ecclesiastical polity 
in a sense and to an extent never before known. In the 
American system this has been from the beginning 
formally and effectively provided for ; and throughout 
the Anglican affiliation the influence of the idea of the 
association of the laity with the Bishops and clergy in all 
that concerns the welfare of the Church, not excluding a 
share in the responsibility of deliberative and legislative 
action, is increasingly prevalent. And the question of 
really serious and vital interest is not whether the influ- 
ence of the laity in such action shall be admitted, but 
whether it is to be kept within the range of those princi- 
ples of association and representation which are essen- 
tially characteristic of the influence of the Bishops and 
clergy in the system of the Church, or is to be rendered 
effective in other ways and on different principles of 
association, involving perhaps the preponderance of 
numerical majorities in large tracts, instead of the safe- 
guard of concurrent majorities adjusted to Episcopal and 
clerical representative action in more compact districts. 

The principle which should rule all such questions, 
and the whole relation of the laity to the deliberative 
and legislative action of the clerical orders, is that their 
action must be, primarily at least, diocesan action ; their 
relation to the Church at large being correspondent to 
that of their Bishops, and the Diocese, as a body, hold- 
ing the same relation to the Church as a whole as the 
Bishop holds to the Episcopate. 

In the analysis of the one Episcopate the single Bishop 
is the unit, because in him is vested the whole power of 
his order for the purpose for which it is instituted ; and, 
by parity of reasoning, what the individual Bishop is to 



164 ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. 

the body of the Episcopate, that the individual Diocese 
is to the body of the Church. It is, upon analysis, the 
single element which, in combination with other like 
elements, constitutes the larger and more complex being 
of the same kind. The whole Church exists in model or 
element, so to speak, in the Diocese, which comprises the 
threefold order of the Ministry, and the laity, united in 
the faith and sacraments of Christ. No element or 
portion of the Diocese, and no subdivision of the Church 
less or more than, or different from, the Diocese, bears 
this relation to the Church as a whole ; whereas in the 
Church as a whole there is nothing different from the 
Diocese in kind, but only in extent. The single unit is 
capable of extending itself indefinitely, supposing there 
should be necessity for such extension. If the whole 
Church throughout the world were extinct save one 
Diocese, the gates of hell should not prevail against it ; 
for from that unit could be established another, and 
others, with the same threefold order, and the laity, 
united in the faith and sacraments of Christ. If this 
power were to be exercised without necessity, and con- 
trary to the will of the rest of the body of which the unit 
is a part, there would be schism and confusion ; and 
hence the canons and customs of the Church maintain 
the necessity of combined action, and the irregularity of 
fractious and individual action. 

Viewing the analysis of the Church in its bearing on 
the question of representation in conciliary bodies, it 
may be quite proper, in a qualified sense, to regard the 
Province, or combination of Dioceses within some par- 
ticular country, as a unit of representation in a larger 
combination of which it may form a part. In such case 
the relation of the Diocese would be mediately through 



THE FEDERAL IDEA. 165 

the Province to the more general division which com- 
prised the Province, or to the whole Church. But 
whether mediately through the Province, or immediately 
and by direct representation, the Diocese would still be 
the unit of representation ; nor does the kind of repre- 
sentation, whether by Bishops only, or by Bishops and 
clergy only, or by these with the laity, affect the analysis. 
In the ancient councils the Dioceses were not unrepre- 
sented because they did not elect delegates ; they were 
represented by their Bishops, who sat in them, not, 
surely, to represent themselves ; not to represent their 
order, because they were themselves, actually and not 
representatively, present ; but to represent that portion 
of the work of Christ which had been committed to them 
— that is, their Dioceses. And in such conciliary bodies as 
admit the conjoint representation of the clergy and the 
laity, the Diocese is indeed represented in all its parts, 
instead of in one order only, but that does not show it 
incapable of having been represented in that one order. 
And although in synods of a larger or more universal 
character the immediate unit of representation may 
possibly — not necessarily — be the Province, yet the ulti- 
mate unit is always the Diocese, which is the thing 
represented, either directly and immediately, or mediately 
in the groups which, containing several Dioceses, may be 
represented as one Province in a larger division of the 
Church representative. 

So that, whether we look at the Church as a whole, 
and acting as a whole, or in its larger divisions, we find 
it existing as a combination of Dioceses, the unity of the 
whole being but the unification of the units which 
compose it. 

This analysis is complete and exact, and gives to the 



l66 ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. 

whole system, and to the units of which it is composed, 
their proper functions and relations. But the same can- 
not be said of an analysis which finds the unit in the 
single parish or congregation, because it is not of the 
same kind with the larger being of which it is a member, 
and has none of its powers of perpetuation and continued 
life. Nor can it be said of an analysis which finds the 
ultimate unit in the province, because the province is not 
the simplest for7n of that kind ; and the unit in any such 
analysis must be the simplest form of the same kind — 
the single element which, combined with other like ele- 
ments, produces the larger and more complex being of 
the same kind. The Diocese only answers to this require- 
ment in the analysis of the Church, as the Bishop only 
answers to it in the analysis of the Episcopate. We must 
therefore hold that what the Bishop is to the Episcopate, 
that the Diocese is to the Church.* 



* C/". "The System of Representation in General Convention,' 
The Church Eclectic, New York, October, 1889. 



THE CIVIL ANALOGY. 167 



PROPOSITION XXII. 

The principle that the rulers and members of the Church owe 
allegiance to the State in which they are providentially 
placed, justifies the distribution of the Church represent- 
ative into divisions corresponding to civil or political 
limits. 

We have seen that the Church is capable of a certain 
lawful or constitutional division, resulting from its ex- 
tension and perpetuation in a lawful and constitutional 
manner, which is not inconsistent with its essential unity. 
If we have regard only to that union of the members of 
the Church with Christ and wath each other which is 
purely spiritual, the Church is not capable of division or 
distribution in any sense, except as individuals may be 
differentiated from each other and from their common 
Head. The unity of the Church in this aspect is doubt- 
less pervading and perpetual, and neither place nor time 
can affect it. But if we have regard to that moral, or 
social, or political union which exists between the mem- 
bers of the society or kingdom founded by Christ to be 
in the world though not of the world, and to be the sac- 
rament, or outward and visible sign, of the spiritual unity 
of Christ with His members, and the effectual means of 
its accomplishment, it is impossible to conceive of the 
Church in this aspect as incapable of any manner of 
division or distribution. It must reside in the world ; 
and that not merely in the world considered as the ma- 
terial receptacle of its visible and tangible members, but 
in the world considered as constituted of men, and of 
men of various social relations with each other. In other 



l68 ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. 

words, it pertains to the nature of the Church as a so- 
ciety that it should come into contact and have certain 
relations with men involved in other social relations, un- 
less we will suppose that no other society than the Church 
is by the Divine Will to exist on the earth. But we find 
in the charter of the Church's institution no exclusive 
right of existence, nor do we find that all the interests of 
men in their relations with each other on this earth are 
committed to its regulation. It has, indeed, the Divine 
mission to lead and influence men in all relations of life ; 
but this is by way of imparting to those who hold such 
relations the knowledge and the grace needful for the 
right discharge of their duty therein, and not by way of 
removing such relations and substituting others for them. 
There are, as we have seen, other institutions which share 
with the Church the warrant of Divine authority and 
imposition, and which, within their respective spheres, 
have the right to exercise the authority and influence 
entrusted to them, just as the Church within its sphere 
has an authority and influence peculiar to itself. It is 
therefore necessary that the Church should come in con- 
tact with these other Divine institutions ; and such contact 
involves the recognition, on the part of the Church, of 
the rights which belong to such institutions by the same 
authority to which it traces its own rights. Inasmuch as 
the State, abiding in the world as an institution of Divine 
authority, exists throughout the world in various political 
divisions, it is necessary that the Church should come 
into contact with the State not merely in the general, 
but in those particular political divisions into which it is 
distributed. 

And since the general diffusion of the Church, and the 
corresponding extent of its membership, precludes the 



THE CIVIL ANALOGY. 169 

possibility of individual assent in matters of legislation, 
and yet laws are presumed to be expressive of common 
consent, it follows that there must be in the Church, as 
well as in the State, provision for the expression of this 
consent by those who are capable of representing it ; 
and the form and manner of this representation will 
naturally correspond to the form and manner of repre- 
sentation for similar purposes in matters of civil interest. 
If the kingdoms of this world were under one uni- 
versal dominion, it would be easy to imagine the Church 
throughout its whole extent under one similar visible 
regulation. But the kingdoms and states of this world 
being many and diverse, it is natural that the Church 
extended among them should partake of their various 
characteristics in the regulation of its external affairs, 
and yet not be affected in the tenure and administration 
of its essential and distinctive principles. Certainly, 
therefore, unless it be one of the essential and distinct- 
ive principles of the Church that the governors of the 
Church should acknowledge a spiritual allegiance to 
some higher power than their own beyond the bounds 
of the State wherein they dwell, those governors are 
justified by the principle of the allegiance which they 
owe to the civil authority under which they live, in re- 
taining their own official supremacy in their own hands. 
The obligation imposed upon these governors by the 
terms of their commission, to act in com.mon, as the 
bond of unity in the Church at large, may be allowed in 
a modified sense to constitute an allegiance which is ex- 
ternal to the bounds of particular States ; but except in 
regard to matters of faith, or such matter of order as 
might in principle affect the Church as a whole, that 
authority of the general body of the governors of 



I70 ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. 

Christ's Church could not be lawfully applied to the 
regulation of their internal and domestic administration. 
Their possession of authority upon a direct responsibility 
to Christ admits of no enforced external power of regu- 
lation while they keep within the analogy of the faith 
and the constitutional order of Christ's institution ; and 
their association with each other within the limits of 
their civil allegiance suffices for all ordinary purposes of 
common and representative government over their own 
flocks. So that, without assuming the position that their 
association under one civil power absolutely precludes 
their association w4th those who are under another civil 
power, for purposes of mutual counsel and determina- 
tion of matters affecting their common duty, it still re- 
mains true that their allegiance to the civil authority 
justifies their grouping themselves within the limits of 
that authority, and acting, in their representative capac- 
ity, independently of all others in all matters of ordinary 
administration and government. 

And this justification becomes the more cogent when 
we consider that the correspondence or analogy between 
the State and the Church representative results not 
merely from similar habits of thought and modes of 
deliberation, but from the participation of the two powers 
in that jurisdiction or discipline whereby in their several 
spheres they are, by the Divine institution, presumed to 
work together in the moral development of man. The 
law of God being the basis of all human law in the State 
as well as in the Church, the makers and administrators 
of that law should proceed upon common principles in 
regard to its requirements in their respective spheres of 
temporal and spiritual jurisdictions ; and when they work 
together in one commonwealth — by mutual influence, if 



THE CIVIL ANALOGY. 171 

not in any formal way — it is with better and more prac- 
tical effect than if the influence of the spirituality be 
brought to bear from an external and alien power, incap- 
able of appreciating the needs and the difficulties of the 
internal administration. At all events, if this be thought 
an argument of expediency, admitting of different views, it 
still remains true that the right of any such external power 
to exercise authority within the jurisdiction of a Church 
already under the government of Christ's Apostolic com- 
mission, is a right which is to be proved before its claim 
can be allowed,, since the official equality involved in 
that commission makes the jurisdiction of each one free 
from the intrusion and interference of any other ; and 
the universal adoption of civil limits as the field of 
spiritual jurisdiction makes, in fact, as many independent 
Churches as there are independent States wherein they 
dwell, saving always their necessary dependence upon the 
common faith and order of Christ's establishment. " The 
best union," therefore, "■ that can be expected between 
visible Churches seated in kingdoms or commonweals, 
independent one of another, is the unity of league or 
friendship^'' * which, however strict it may be thought 
desirable to make it, cannot preclude, though it may 
limit, the autonomy of those who are concerned in it. 

In the history of the Church representative acting in 
a legislative and administrative capacity in the way of 
government, there appear to be certain divisions which 
are marked by plainly distinguishable characteristics, and 
which it may be convenient for the purposes of the pres- 
ent discussion to call the primitive, the imperial, the 
monarchical, and the republican ; as in each period the 



* Jackson, Works, vol. xii. p, 59, ed. 1844, 



172 ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. 

relation of the Church to the States or Kingdoms in which 
it has resided has been conformable in greater or less 
degree to the various patterns of civil government with 
which it has come in contact. 

I. What is here called the primitive period extends 
from the time of the Apostles to the time when the 
Roman Emperor Constantine embraced Christianity. 

The Christian Church being endowed, as a society, with 
a Divine right of preserving the faith and securing the 
discipline that should be necessary to hinder the gates of 
hell from prevailing against it, the Church governors, 
as Kennett remarks in his treatise on ecclesiastical 
synods, had authority to meet and consult of all urgent 
affairs ; and when so assembled their resolutions and 
deci'ees were thought declaratory of the sense of Scrip- 
ture and of sound traditions, and were so far binding to 
the inferior Priests and people. But according to the 
external policy of things and times, these synods had a 
different nature and denomination. 

The earliest of those Christian synods might be called 
Apostolical, and their ordinary sessions were at Jerusa- 
lem, where the Bishop of that Church had a seeming 
presidency above the other Apostles. And perhaps if 
that city had stood, the succession of governors in that 
Church should have gone in the lineage of our Saviour ; 
and then, had that been so, the Bishops of Jerusalem, 
with some affinity to the High Priests, might possibly 
have had a fairer pretence to the primacy tlian those of 
Rome. 

The next synods were diocesan ; for after the destruc- 
tion of Jerusalem all Bishops were of equal character, 
and had within their own respective districts the separate 
care of Church affairs, so that every diocese was an ab- 



THE CIVIL ANALOGY. 173 

solute Church within itself, and had full authority over 
its own members. The Bishop and his colleagues, who 
were select Presbyters, held their peculiar synods, and 
their acts and determinations (agreeable to the analogy of 
faith and form of government in the Catholic Church) 
were as valid and obligatory within their own communion 
as if they had been actually confirmed by all the other 
Bishops. I say every diocese was a complete Church, 
and the acts of a diocesan synod were, within the bounds 
of that authority, full and sufficient ecclesiastical laws. 
As there was yet no liberty, so there was yet no occasion 
for provincial, national, or general synods. 

It was soon needful for the common concerns of 
Christianity that the neighboring Bishops should not 
only intend their own flocks, but should mutually cor- 
respond by letters and by meetings, for the general 
interest of the Catholic Church. And when the several 
Bishops of equal order did so meet, it was expedient for 
peace and method to give the chair to some One particu-, 
lar Bishop as the president in such a common assembly. 
To avoid emulation, it was least invidious to choose that 
Bishop who governed the chief city in that province ; 
who had by degrees some larger privileges and powers, 
more easy to obtain, and more suitable to him, because 
his see was in the metropolis of the civil government. 
Hence came the induced rights of metropolitans, and 
the practice of provincial synods.* 

This exceedingly rational statement of Kennett is well 
sustained by the learned Bingham, in whose account of 
the same period the civil analogies are more precisely 
applied : 



* Kennett's " Ecclesiastical Synods," pp, 197-204. 



174 ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. 

" To understand the state and division of the Church 
aright, it will be proper to take a short view of the state 
and division of the Roman Empire ; for it is generally 
thought by learned men, that the Church held some con- 
formity to that in her external policy and government, 
both at her first settlement, and in the changes and 
variations that were made in after ages. In the time of 
the Apostles every city among the Greeks and Romans 
was under the immediate government of certain mag- 
istrates within its own body, commonly known by the 
name of (SovXr/ or Senatus, its Common Council or 
Senate, otherwise called Ordo and Cuj-ia, the States and 
court of the city ; among which there was usually one 
chief or principal above the rest, whom some call the 
dictator, and others the defensor civitatisj whose power 
extended not only over the city, but all the adjacent 
territory, commonly called the Ttpoaareia^ the suburbs, 
or lesser towns, belonging to its jurisdiction. This was a 
city in the civil account, a place where the civil mag- 
istrate and a sort of lesser Senate was fixed, to order the 
affairs of that community, and govern within such a 
precinct. 

'' Now much after the same manner the Apostles, in 
first planting and establishing the Church, wherever they 
found a civil magistracy settled in any place, there they 
endeavored to settle an ecclesiastical one, consisting of a 
Senate or Presbytery, a Common Council of Presbyters, 
and one chief president above the rest, commonly called 
the TrpoeoTG??, or the Apostle, or Bishop, or Angel of 
the Church ; whose jurisdiction was not confined to a 
single congregation, but extended to the whole region or 
district belonging to the city, which was the npoaffTeia, 
or TtapoiKia, or, as we now call it, the diocese of the 



THE CIVIL ANALOGY. 175 

Church. According to this model, most probably, St. 
Paul directed Titus to ordain Elders in Crete, nata 
TtoXiv, in every city ; that is, to settle an ecclesiastical 
Senate and government in every place where there was 
before a civil one ; which, from the subsequent history 
of the Church we learn, was a Bishop and his Presbytery, 
who were conjointly called the Elders and Senate of the 
Church. . . . Another division of the Roman Empire 
was into provinces and dioceses. A province was the 
cities of a whole region subjected to the authority of one 
chief magistrate, who resided in the metropolis, or chief 
city of the province. This was commonly a Praetor, or 
Proconsul, or some magistrate of the like eminence and 
dignity. A diocese was a stiJl larger district, containing 
several provinces within the compass of it, in the 
capital city of which district a more general magistrate 
had his residence, whose power extended over the whole 
diocese, to receive appeals, and determine all causes 
that were referred to him for a new hearing from any 
city within the district. And this magistrate was some- 
times called an eparchus, or vicarius of the Roman 
Empire, and particularly a Prcefectus Augustalis at Alex- 
andria, When first this division was made, it is not so 
certainly agreed among learned men ; but it is generally 
owned that the division of provinces is more ancient 
than that of dioceses; for the division into dioceses 
began only about the time of Constantine. But the 
cantonizing of the Empire into provinces was long 
before ; by some referred to Vespasian, by others reck- 
oned still more ancient, and coeval to the first establish- 
ment of the Christian Church. 

" However this was, it is very plain that the Church took 
her model, in setting up metropolitical and patriarchal 



I7<^ ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. 

power, from this plan of the State. For, as in any me- 
tropolis, or chief city of the province, there was a supe- 
rior magistrate above the magistrates of every single city, 
so, likewise, in the same metropolis there was a Bishop 
whose power extended over the whole province, whence 
he was called the metropolitan or primate, as being the 
principal Bishop of the province, as has been showed in 
another place. In like manner, as the State had a 
vicarius in every capital city of each civil diocese, so the 
Church, in process of time, came to have her exarchs, or 
patriarchs, in many if not in all the capital cities of the 
Empire. 

'* This, in the main, was the state and division of the 
Church into provinces and exarchates, or metropolitical 
and patriarchal dioceses, in the latter end of the fourth 
century, from which it appears that a very near corre- 
spondence was observed between the Church and the 
State in this matter, both in the Western and Eastern 
Empire. . . . Yet, these being matters only of con- 
veniency and outward order, the Church did not tie her- 
self absolutely to follow that model, but only so far as 
she judged it expedient and conducive to the ends of her 
own spiritual government and discipline."* 

Of course, in so far as this account relates to the state 
and division of the Church in the latter end of the fourth 
century^ it covers more ground than is included in the 
primitive period which we are at present considering. 
But the view exhibited in both the abstracts just given 
has regard to a progressive development, and, so far as 
relates to synodical form, which is that expression of the 
Church representative with which we are now particularly 



Bingham, "Christian Antiquities," Book IX. ch. i. sees. 1-9. 



THE CIVIL ANALOGY. 177 

concerned, obviously traces the growth of the system of 
councils, with its attendant distinctions in Episcopal title 
and prerogative, from the custom of Diocesan organiza- 
tion existing in the times immediately following the 
Apostolic councils up to the more formal and extended 
organization which is commonly known as the provincial 
system, which, with more or less specific historical ex- 
ample, was certainly well established and clearly distin- 
guishable in the fourth century, and which, in its origin, 
progress, and maturity, bears the ineffaceable mark of 
civil analogy,* 

II. But the system naturally becomes not only more 
thoroughly unified after the emperors became Christian, 
but also morg definite and precise in its details of arrange- 
ment ; and synodical sessions and acts, as v/ell as Epis- 
copal distinctions and prerogatives, acquire an additional 
weight of influence, if not of authority, from the recog- 
nition and sanction of imperial power. To this period 
we trace the first appearance of such a representation of 
the Church as might, in a proper sense, be considered 
proportionable to the whole body ; and it is plainly to 
the civil authority that we owe this appearance in fact, 
whether or not we are inclined to the belief that such a 
general appearance of the Church representative would 
or could have been accomplished without State action. 
For, when the Roman Empire became Christian, the 
emperors thought proper, on urgent occasions, of which 
they constituted themselves, and were allowed by the 



^ The student should read with particular care the second book of 
Bingham's " Christian Antiquities ; " the Rev. Dr. Egar's " Christen- 
dom Ecclesiastical and Political ; " the Rev. Dr. Fulton's introduc- 
tion to his valuable " Index Canonum ; " and the Rev. Dr. Wilson's 
recent essay on " The Provincial System." 



178 ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. 

Church to be, the judges, to call together the Bishops 
within their dominion. Constantine the Great called the 
Council of Nice, and sat in it. Theodosius the Great 
called the Council of Constantinople, and, at the desire of 
the Fathers, confirmed its acts. Such, indeed, was the 
relation between the emperors and the Church represent- 
ative of that period, that, as Kennett remarks, the very- 
being of general councils was founded upon a civil su- 
premacy. " It was a universal emperor, not a universal 
Bishop, that first authorized the institution of them, and 
his proper jurisdiction extended to all the Bishops so 
convened. And, indeed, the first general councils were 
in effect but national synods, confined to one civil govern- 
ment, of which there was but one head, though so many 
members of different countries and peoples."* 

III. Upon the ruins of the Roman Empire, however, 
many countries formed themselves into absolute and 
independent governments, and thus came in what is here 
called the monarchical period, in which the rights which 
had been claimed by the emperors in summoning and 
sanctioning general councils, were appropriated by their 
successors, the rulers in different portions of their former 
dominion, and were equally admitted by the Churches of 
their respective jurisdictions. So that what the emperors 
had been to the councils called general, that the kings 
became to the councils which are called national ; and 
though the Bishop of Rome, upon the dissolution of the 
Western Empire, usurped the pretension of calling gen- 
eral councils, yet the supreme magistrates in every nation 
had a right to allow, or to forbid, their subject Bishops 
to obey the summons of the Pope as being an act beyond 



* Kennett, "Ecclesiastical Synods," ut sup. 



THE CIVIL ANALOGY. 179 

his jurisdiction, and requiring the authority of the joint 
consent of all Christian princes ; and the right was exer- 
cised as well as disputed. 

The foregoing sketch is sufficient to indicate that the 
course of history substantiates the fact of the distribution 
of the Church representative into divisions corresponding 
to the civil divisions within which it dwells ; and that the 
moving cause of this distribution has been the recogni- 
tion on the part of the rulers of the Church of allegiance 
due from them to the civil authority. The conflict be- 
tween the different civil powers and the Papacy has been, 
of course, persistent, and with alternate success and de- 
feat. The history of that conflict forms a very large part 
of the history of the Christian world, since the emperors 
first assumed what the Popes afterward usurped, and the 
monarchs took back, sometimes with large interest for 
the enforced loan. But there is no doubt of the con- 
straining influence in this respect of the emperor^ and 
the monarchs ; and there is little doubt, either, that the 
constraint of the Papacy was largely exercised in the way 
of endeavor to operate upon Christian subjects through 
Christian princes ; that is to say, in the endeavor to 
appropriate to itself the imperial power, which is an addi- 
tional indication of the pervading instinct of ecclesiastical 
association within State lines. 

It was one of the most notable results, and causes, also, 
it might be said, of the Reformation, that it emphasized 
and brought distinctly to the foreground the inherent 
independent rights of national Churches, a right closely 
interwrapt with the independency of individual Bishops ; 
for, although the cause of national Churches was the 
cause of groups of Bishops, yet that cause was but 
the cause of each Bishop in that group, associated in the 



l8o ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY 

exercise of his Divinely given commission with others 
holding the same commission equally with himself. And 
nowhere was the cause of national Churches more fully 
professed, or more earnestly and ably maintained, than 
in England, and all the more so because there, more than 
elsewhere, it carried with it the cause of the right of the 
Bishops to exercise the authority of their commission 
without the interference or intrusion of a foreign Bishop 
with the tyrannical claim of universal jurisdiction, con- 
trary to the very first principles of the Episcopate. 

IV, But the constitution of civil government in Eng- 
land was of a different character from that of civil 
government in most of the nations affected by the Refor- 
mation ; and as in the course of Divine Providence that 
constitution developed the larger interest and influence 
of the people, so by degrees the form of the Church 
representative in that nation came to share, to some 
extent, the characteristics of that constitution, and not 
only to wear the appearance of similarity to the civil 
government in its forms of administration, but also to act 
upon principles of representation somewhat analogous to 
those of the civil system. 

And here one finds evident traces of the beginning of 
that period wherein the Church shows its capacity for 
adaptation to the republican form of government as 
well as to the monarchical or imperial. For although the 
form of government in that country has continued to be 
monarchical, yet in respect to the agency of the whole 
body of the community in the direction of that govern- 
ment, exercised under the restraining and balancing 
effect of the direct agency of certain classes or interests 
in that community, it bears within itself the spirit of 
republican institutions, if not the germ of an ultimate 



THE CIVIL ANALOGY. I Si 

republican form. And the Church representative in 
that country has in like manner been found to possess 
qualities akin to those of the State in its recognition of 
the lay influence, not only as represented by the Crown, 
but also as, at least at one period, associated with its 
councils, and in the extension of the representation of 
its constituent parts, so that the clergy have a distinct 
and responsible share in it as well as the Bishops. 

With regard to the lay influence and cooperation, it 
would seem that the representation of it was not always 
attached exclusively to the Crown. Certainly there was 
an early custom that many matters relating to the Church 
should be settled in councils at which the great men 
of the land, both civil and ecclesiastical, were present, 
although in regard to matters purely spiritual coming 
before these great councils the ecclesiastics were wont 
to go apart and discuss them, and then to return and 
report them and obtain the sanction of the council, as a 
whole, to what they had resolved. And through the 
Saxon times the ecclesiastical synods were open to the 
inferior clergy, and to the king and nobles, who sat, how- 
ever, rather as witnesses and protectors than as judges. 

The system of the Church representative in England 
is very difficult of understanding. It has a complicated 
history, in which it will be easy for the student to lose 
himself ; but it appears to be plain that the difficulties 
and complications have grown out of the struggle to 
maintain the nationality of the Church, and to preserve 
it from being engulfed in the imperial maw of the 
Papacy. Without attempting to sketch that struggle, or 
to offer an explanation of the system as a whole, it may 
be useful, and will serve the purpose of the present dis- 
cussion, to give a brief account of the synodical constitu- 



I02 ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. 

tion peculiar to it, from which it will be seen that it has 
acquired a certain extension of representation not found 
in other countries ; which will appear, in the subsequent 
account of the American system, to have been applied, 
with still further extension, in accordance with the civil 
system of that country. 

The original constitution of the larger and extra- 
diocesan ecclesiastical synods having been Episcopal, 
and the attendance of Presbyters in them, although oc- 
casional, yet clearly exceptional and by way of assistance 
— or possibly in some cases substitution — the properly 
ecclesiastical synods of England appear at first to have 
been constituted in the same manner. But from the 
middle of the thirteenth century, and probably before, 
the ecclesiastical synods consisted of what were then 
called greater and lesser prelates. Archbishops and 
Bishops being the greater, and Abbots, Priors, Deans, 
and Archdeacons the less ; to which were sometimes 
added, when measures particularly concerned their 
interests, even some of the inferior clergy. The greater, 
however, in these synods enacted, while the lesser ap- 
proved and consented. These were provincial synods, 
and in process of time began to be called and influenced 
by the Pope, who summoned them directly, or through 
the Archbishop of Canterbury as his Legate ; and 
although such action was made illegal, yet these synods 
continued thus to meet until they were extinguished in 
the reign of Henry VIII. by what is known as the Act of 
Submission ; after which time an assembly of ecclesias- 
tical persons, long accustomed to meet for different pur- 
poses, began to occupy the position which had been held 
by them, and to do the work which had been done by them, 
althousrh in a somewhat different manner. The Act of 



THE CIVIL ANALOGY. 183 

Submission having been the death-blow to the purely- 
ecclesiastical or provincial synods, the convocations, as 
they were called, naturally succeeded into their place and 
functions ; being, indeed, largely composed of the same 
persons, with one important difference, however, that the 
inferior clergy were necessarily present by representation 
(and that diocesan) by proctors for chapters and proctors 
for clergy. 

The convocation as distinguished from the provincial 
synod originated in the reign of Edward I., who in 1282 
directed the Archbishop of Canterbury to call his Suf- 
fragans, Abbots, and other ecclesiastical officials before- 
him, with the object of raising money by their consent 
to the taxation of their property. This effort not being 
successful was by and by accomplished in another way, 
the Archbishop calling the Suffragans to a provincial 
synod, and advising them to treat with their respective 
clergy in diocesan synods on that subject ; and after- 
wards providing for the sending up, by each diocese, of 
two proctors with full and express powers to treat with 
him and his brethren. The clergy, though at first ob- 
jecting to this attendance, appear by degrees to have 
become reconciled to it, and by the middle of the four- 
teenth century they were regularly called, as a matter of 
course, about the same time that Parliament met ; so that 
these convocations came to be considered the ecclesias- 
tical parts of Parliament, the members of convocation 
taxing the clergy in a manner to which the lay Parlia- 
ment was not then competent. But although the chief 
object of the kings was raising money, yet they were 
disposed also to make these convocations available as a 
check upon the provincial synods which were under the 
Papal influence. 



184 ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. 

Thus called into existence for the civil purpose of 
taxation, these bodies by degrees assumed the aspect, 
and in some measure performed the office, of a Church 
assembly for Church purposes ; but this not as legis- 
lators, but as petitioners, presenting their specification of 
things complained of, or to be reformed, when they gave 
their money. They comprised not only the Bishops of the 
dioceses, but a distinct representation of other interests 
therein, one proctor being for each chapter, and two for 
the diocese as distinguished from the chapter ; and 
though their sessions were at first together, yet since the 
time of Henry VIII., at least, they were divided into two 
houses, the Upper House consisting of Archbishop and 
Bishops, the Lower House of the proctors. The latter 
being subordinate to the former have, however, two dis- 
tinctive rights : First, that of submitting to the Upper 
House, for presentation to the Crown, the Schedule of 
Gravamina and Refonnanda; second, that of a general 
negative on the proceedings of the Upper House, so 
that nothing can become a synodical act without their 
concurrence, which Gibson calls a power beyond that of 
the Presbyters of other nations. From the time of Henry 
VIII. until 1689, matters continued in this relative posi- 
tion ; but in that year the ground began to be taken by 
the Lower House (which hitherto had been strictly sub- 
ordinate to the Upper) of an independent and coordinate 
right, making themselves, contrary to all ecclesiastical 
precedent at home and abroad, correspondent to the 
House of Commons in the civil system. This novel 
claim gave rise to many angry and unseemly disputes 
between the two houses, and led the way to the silencing 
of convocation by the Crown, which took place in 17 ry. 
From that time until its comparatively recent revival, 



THE CIVIL ANALOGY. 185 

about 1852, convocation was always summoned at the 
same time with Parliament, but never permitted to enter 
upon business.* 

The later history of convocation does not affect the 
present inquiry ; nor need the former history have been 
at such length referred to, except for its bearing upon 
the general subject of the tendency of the Church rep- 
resentative to assimilate itself to the form and manner 
of procedure in matters of civil legislation ; and also for 
the bearing which to some extent it may have had upon 
the American system, which in point of time followed it, 
and by the founders of which it may perhaps have been 
regarded as adding some sanction of ecclesiastical prece- 
dent to the civil analogies by which, apparently, they 
were mainly influenced in the structure of their synodical 
bodies, after the independence of the States, consequent 
upon the Revolutionary War, devolved upon them the 
task of organizing a distinct ecclesiastical polity. 

The tracing of a parallel, however, between the Eng- 
lish convocational system and the American conven- 
tional system, can extend no farther than to the ascer- 
tainment of the common characteristics of an Upper, or 
Episcopal House, and a Lower House consisting of a 



* For a view of the structure of convocation (following an account 
of English provincial councils until the Act of Submission, 25 Henry 
VIII., and a history of that Act), see Lathbury's " History of 
Convocation," pp. 1 14-122. Cf. also Kennett's "Ecclesiastical 
Synods," ut sup. The student will find an excellent summary 
sketch of "The History of Convocation," drawn apparently from 
Kennett ; Gibson's "Complete History of Convocation," and 
Wake's "Authority of Christian Princes" — all of which are books 
not easy of access — in a paper contributed to Warren's " Synodalia," 
p. 135 (1853). From this paper, and from Kennett and Lathbury, 
the above account has been chiefly taken. 



1 86 ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. 

diocesan representation by clergy. The lay element, 
except as supposed to be represented by the Crown, is 
absent from the English 'system ; while in the American 
system it is made equal to the clerical element in the 
Lower House. And the relative position of the two 
Houses, in the beginning of the American system, is 
entirely a reversal of that of the two Houses in the 
English system. In the English system the Upper 
House enacted, the Lower House having a negative ; in 
the American system the Lower House was constituted 
the enacting power, the negative being given to the 
Upper, or Episcopal House, and that with the power 
reserved to the Lower House to overrule it. 

It is true, no doubt, that human systems of polity are 
the result of growth and adaptation, and that they are 
seldom or never projected from nothing antecedent. 
They are not so much invented as adapted and applied. 
And the American ecclesiastical system, although con- 
taining many things new in the use which was then 
made of them, is no exception to the rule ; for these 
things, although new in that relation, were not altogether 
new in themselves. And could we suppose that there 
was no other model of representative government open 
to the observation of those who founded this system 
than that of the English convocation, we might imagine 
that, upon examination of this system, they had found 
it expedient to take from it the idea of intrusting legis- 
lation to a body composed of two Houses, Episcopal 
and Clerical, and to improve upon that model by adding 
the representation of an element unrecognized in it, and, 
by then reversing its mode of operation, making the 
head in the new system occupy the place of the feet in 
the former system. The improbability of their adoption 



THE CIVIL ANALOGY. 187 

of such a mode of procedure, in view of their actual civil 
environment, is greatly enhanced, moreover, by the con- 
sideration that the English Convocation at the time of 
the organization of the American system was rather a 
thing of the past than of the present. Seventy years 
had elapsed since it had been deprived of active life, and 
there was then no thought of its restoration. Its mem- 
ory, of course, survived, and with such of the founders of 
the American system as were familiar with its history 
it might naturally have had a certain influence as 
furnishing in some sort a precedent for what they 
were doing ; but beyond that dim perception of asso- 
ciation we can hardly suppose its influence to have 
extended. 

When we consider, however, that those who were, in 
the course of Providence, called upon to organize this 
system of polity, were living in a time when the whole 
civil system of their country was being reorganized, and 
that many of those who were eminent in the councils of 
the Church were associated also with its civil interests, it 
certainly is no violent presumption that they would be 
in some degree affected, in the settlement of the affairs 
of the Church, by the civil institutions with which they 
were familiar, and to which they were, for the most part, 
greatly addicted. Nor, in view of the tendencies toward 
civil analogy exhibited in all the past history of the 
Church, is it other than what might naturally be ex- 
pected, that the scattered members of the body of the 
Church in these States should, in going through the 
process of organization, be affected by the political 
maxims and theories of their day ; and that those who 
had vindicated their right to a truly representative gov- 
ernment as the safeguard of constitutional liberty in the 



10^3 ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. 

State, should be solicitous to secure the same end in the 
Church by similar means.* 

To this a priori consideration we are to add the 
observance of the facts: (i) Of the position of the 
Church in this country at the time of the organization in 
view, and (2) of the actual institutions then established 
as compared with the civil institutions previously com- 
pleted. 

I. The Church, when by its extension from the Old 
World it effected a lodgement in this country, was, in the 
very planting of it, endowed with the same Episcopal con- 
stitution which was inherent in the original stock out of 
which it grew. But, although Episcopal in its constitution, 
this Church was, for a long series of years — nearly two 
centuries — to a great extent deprived of personal contact 
with Episcopal government, the Church in the colonies 
prior to the Revolution having no resident Episcopate, 
and being regarded as an appendage to, or extension of, 
the jurisdiction of the Bishop'of London. The result of 
this was that discipline greatly declined, while the depend- 
ence of the several congregations upon the Episcopate 
became almost nominal. A Bishop was, indeed, rarely 



* " The connection between the Heaven -guided statesmen who 
worked out for us the problem of our political freedom, and the 
efforts of the same master-spirits of the time in outlining a policy 
and in establishing principles that make our Church, freed from for- 
eign oversight and rule by the war, distinctively American in the 
minutest details of its economy and organization, are established facts 
of history. Of the two-thirds of the framers of the Constitution who 
were by birth, by baptism, by family connection, or by personal 
affiliation, Churchmen, nearly one-fifth were deputies in actual 
attendance upon the early General or State Conventions of the 
Church." — The Relations of the Church and the Country, pp. 22, 23 
(1893), by William Stevens Perry, D.D. (Oxon.), Bishop of Iowa. 



THE CIVIL ANALOGY. 189 

seen by any member of the Church, except those who 
performed the journey of three thousand miles to Eng- 
land for the purpose of receiving Holy Orders. And it 
was not to be wondered at, that succeeding generations 
should grow up with a conception of the Church hardly 
reaching beyond that of a number of independent congre- 
gations, each with its own Presbyter. The dependence, 
too, of many of these Presbyters upon the venerable 
Society for Propagating the Gospel, for the whole or a 
part of their support, and their status as missionaries of 
that Society, rather than as the bearers of the delegated 
authority of the Bishops as the chief ministers of the 
common flock, probably tended to obscure still further 
the relation of the parishes to the Episcopate, and thus 
to impress men more strongly with the congregational 
idea, which was the same, by the way, with that which 
underlay the administration of most of the societies of 
Puritan origin by which the Church was surrounded. 
The fact, too, that property, to such extent as it was 
possessed by the Church, was vested in the congregations 
or their trustees, helped to strengthen this congregational 
tendency of the colonial Church ; and all these facts 
together predisposed it to the formation, when the time 
should come, of some system in which the body of the 
Church should act by representation, instead of adhering 
to the system of being governed by a simply Episcopal 
rule.* 

Not less plain, nor less important, is the fact that when 
the time did come for the formation of this system, the 
representation by which the Church acted in the process 

* Cf. " Divine Authority, Catholic Precedent, Civil Analogy." 
Discourse by W. J. Seabury. Published by Mr. James Pott, New 
York, 1880. 



ipo ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY, 

of organization was not that of the members, or even 
communicants, of the Church, numerically considered, nor 
yet of the parishes or congregations ; but of groups or 
collections of those parishes, considered as composed of 
clergymen and laymen, and contained within certain 
ascertained territorial districts ; and the further fact that 
these districts were several of those colonies which had 
recently been recognized by Great Britain as independent 
States. 

If we were to look at this matter of representation 
abstractly, and draw from our observations an inference 
as to what the manner of it might have been, or might 
have been expected to be, or perhaps ought to have been, 
it would be necessary to notice two considerations as 
bearing upon the probabilities of choice. One of these 
is the moral consideration of the substantial unity of the 
body of the members of the Church of England in the 
new-made States, corresponding to the substantial unity 
of the body of the citizens of those States, as being gen- 
erally of one race, and of a common inheritance in lan- 
guage and civilization ; the other is the legal or political 
consideration that the States, as such, were quite inde- 
pendent of each other, being as yet held only by the 
loose and ineffectual bond of the Confederacy, and that 
this independence of the States involved the same inde- 
pendence of the Church within those States, or even 
greater, there being then, in the beginning of this move- 
ment towards association, no pretence of even a Confed- 
eracy ecclesiastical. To the observation of this moral 
consideration in the case of the Church, might be added 
the reflection that the different Episcopal congregations 
in the colonies had known no union before the Revolu- 
tion, except that of their common connection with the 



THE CIVIL ANALOGY. 191 

Bishop of London ; and that their long-settled habit of 
desiring a Bishop for the colonies, there being only the 
thought of providing an available substitute for the 
Bishop of London on this side of the water, would tend, 
in many quarters, in the direction of consolidating the 
scattered members into one organization, and having a 
Bishop, or perhaps more than one, for the superintend- 
ence of the whole, and would naturally obscure, if not 
exclude, the view of a representation of the Church 
within the States. And the moral consideration, strength- 
ened by this reflection, might lead us to infer that the 
constituency represented was the mass of the Churchmen 
or congregations diffused throughout the whole region 
of the country, which would seriously affect our view of 
the nature and power of the representative body. 

To this process of abstract reasoning, men are much 
addicted ; and if, in making use of it, they would confine 
their conclusions to the potential, and not transfer them 
to the actual, there would not be the slightest objection 
to the intellectual exercise. In other words, if they would 
distinguish between what they think ought to have been 
done, and that which really was done, much confusion 
would be avoided. It is well known that the same pro- 
cess of reasoning has been used in respect to the civil 
system, and that the conclusion has been drawn from it, 
not only that the practical unity of the people of the 
States made it expedient for them to be united under 
one government, but ako that in fact they did act as 
one people in the formation of a government responsible 
to them as a whole, instead of being, in a legal and 
constitutional point of view, several politically distinct 
communities, which constituted, for common purposes, a 
common government involving unity of authority over 



192 ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. 

the individual members of each within a specified sphere.* 
Nor is it the least among the evidences of the reality of 
the civil analogies of the Church representative in this 
country, that we find not only similar conditions of fact 
resulting in similar actual provisions, but also tenden- 
cies to the use of this abstract reasoning in regard to 
ihe nature and powers of the common government in the 
Church, similar to those which we find in regard to the 
nature and powers of the common civil government. 
These two schools of thought, so to speak, have been 



* This characteristic of the direct bearing of the general govern- 
ment upon the individual in the civil system of the United States, is 
indicated, and with great felicity traced to its origin, in thought as 
well as action, by Chief Justice Shea in his altogether admirable 
treatise on the "Life and Epoch of Alexander Hamilton *' (2d ed. 
Riverside Press, Cambridge, 1880, pp. 1 01-103). " The family was 
in order of time before the State, and the State is a combination of 
fathers and masters for the better protection of themselves and 
families. Reason points us to this as the probable origin of political 
communities, and history attests the fact of such origin. Like as 
the members of the family regard its chief and husband, domus 
vinculum, so does the individual citizen in his public capacity look 
to the State, though himself an essential constituent of it, as a 
supreme law and civil governance. Herein we have not only the 
special and local government within a family and limited to its own 
affairs, but we have a general government comprehending and per- 
vading throughout, all at once, the grand aggregate, supreme in its 
unity and in its universality ; each a government bearing directly upon 
the individual. Herein arises the feasible and practicable system 
for a duality of government over the same territory and over the 
same people. In it we can see the first original of the principle 
which Hamilton had divined, and which he was to apply to the sev- 
eral States in their independent operation and scope, and to the 
same States in empire. He saw the consequent while it was yet 
dormant in principle, and he called it into existence and organiza- 
tion," 



THE CIVIL ANALOGY. 193 

evident in the civil system from the beginning, and 
contemporary with them have been the same schools in 
that branch of the Church representative which we are 
now considering — the one influenced by what is here 
called the moral consideration of the substantial unity 
of the people as a whole, to the extent of ignoring or 
denying the fact of the political discrimination into inde- 
pendent integral parts ; the other influenced by the legal 
consideration of the necessity of voluntary or federative 
association in order to the common government of several 
communities, each one whole and complete in itself, 
although politically composed of men of the same race 
or the same religion as those who compose the other 
communities with which they are politically united. And 
those who are disciples of one of these schools in the 
State, are almost inevitably found to be disciples of the 
corresponding school in the Church. 

And although the observations here introduced may 
seem to be somev/hat of a digression in an inquiry as to 
facts, yet they are not without an obvious bearing upon 
the general question of civil analogy, and also upon the 
value and importance of the facts alleged, that in the 
process of the formation of our ecclesiastical organiza- 
tion the representation of the Church was not that of a 
constituency diffused throughout the whole region covered 
by the system, but of a constituency of distinct integral 
parts, and that these units of the Church system were 
respectively included within the States which were the 
units of the civil system. 

These facts evidently appear from the first Journals 
of the General Convention, and from that which is the 
best source of information on this subject, the Memoirs 
of the venerable Bishop White, to whom belongs the 



194 ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. 

honor of having been the father of this system of rep- 
resentation. The evidence shows that although there 
had at first — and before the actual independence of the 
States — been only the idea of a representative body com- 
bining the clergy and representatives of congregations in 
convenient districts, yet that in 1785, when there was 
made what may be called the first draft of the constitu- 
tion afterwards adopted, the idea of convenient districts 
disappears, and along with it the other ideas which had 
in the meantime been mooted, of associated congrega- 
tions in two or more States, and of reservation of powers 
to the clergy and laity of congregations ; and the ground 
taken is distinctly that of the Church in each State being 
represented, and having, as such, one vote in General 
Convention, and of having Bishops provided for the sev- 
eral States.* The same provisions appear, with changes 
not affecting the point of the Church in the State being 
the thing represented, in the amended draft of 1786, and 
in the completed form of 1789. In the first session of 
the Convention of 1786, it is resolved, " that it be recom- 
mended to the Conventions of this Church in the several 
States represented in this Convention that they authorize 
and empower their deputies to the next General Conven- 
tion ... to confirm and ratify a General Constitu- 
tion, respecting both the doctrine and discipline of the 
Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of 
America : "f a provision which was necessary, because 
hitherto what had been done rested on recommendation 
only. J; In the second session of 1786, the Convention, 
on a question put, decided that it had no authority to 

* Articles II., V., VI., VII., XL, of this draft. Bioren's "Jour- 
nals," p. 9. f Rioren's "Journals," p. 26. 

:{: Bishop White's " Memoirs," p. 96. Cf. pp. 80, 81 (2d ed., 1836). 



THE CIVIL ANALOGY. 195 

admit as members persons deriving their appointment 
not from a State convention but from a particular parish 
or parishes only.* In the first session of 1789, the mem- 
bers were called upon to declare their powers relative to 
the resolution of 1786, which had recommended their 
being appointed by their State conventions with the full 
power to confirm and ratify a General Constitution, and 
reported that they came fully empowered. f In the second 
session of this year the Constitution was acceded to by 
the representatives of the Church in Connecticut, and in 
other States not before included in the union.| These 
citations are sufficient to establish the character of the 
constituency of the representative body as having been 
that of the Church in the State ; and the fact that Con- 
necticut had, since the year 1784, been a complete Church 
with its duly consecrated Bishop, and as such had re- 
mained independent of this union § until it voluntarily 
and on conditions acceded to it ; || and that in every State 
it was contemplated that there should be a Bishop,^ shows 
that the Church in the State was not only regarded as the 
unit of the representative system, but also regarded as 
being a unit of a Diocesan character ; the Church in each 
State being in fact a Diocese, either (as in the case of 
Connecticut) actually provided with a Bishop, or, as in 
the case of the other States, temporarily deprived of that 
with which it was intended to be, and soon after actually 
was, provided.** 



*Bioren, p. 39. f Bioren, p. 48. ^Bioren, p. 74. 

§ Bishop White's "Memoirs," p. 81. || Bioren, p. 74. 

^Article VI., 1785, 1786 ; Article IV., 1789. Bioren, pp. 9, 25, 76. 
** Plan for obtaining Consecration of Bishops, adopted in session 
of 1785. October 5th. 

' ' First. That this Convention address the Archbishops and Bishops 



196 ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. 

2. If we look now at the institutions actually estab- 
lished in this organization, or formation of the Church 

of the Church of England, requesting them to confer the Episcopal 
character on such persons as shall be chosen and recommended to 
them for that purpose from the Conventions of this Church in the 
respective States. 

" Secondly. That it be recommended to the said Conventions that 
they elect persons for this purpose. 

" Thirdly. That it be further recommended to the different Con- 
ventions, at their next respective sessions, to appoint committees 
with powers to correspond with the English Bishops for the carrying 
of these resolutions into effect ; and that until such committees shall 
be appointed, they be requested to direct any communications which 
they may be pleased to make on this subject, to the committee con- 
sisting of the Rev. Dr. White, President ; the Rev. Dr. Smith, the 
Rev. Mr. Provost, the Hon. James Duane, Esq., and Samuel Powell 
and Richard Peters, Esquires. 

" Fourthly. That it be further recommended to the different Con- 
ventions, that they pay especial attention to the making it appear to 
their Lordships, that the persons who shall be sent to them for con- 
secration are desired in the character of Bishops, as well by the laity 
as by the clergy of this Church, in the said States respectively, and 
that they will be received by them in that character on their return. 

" Fifthly. And in order to assure their Lordships of the legality of 
the present proposed application, that the Deputies now assembled be 
desired to make a respectful address to the civil rulers of the States 
in which they respectively reside, to certify that the said application 
is not contrary to the Constitutions and laws of the same. 

" Sixthly. . . ." Bioren, pp. ii, 12. 

This extract from the order of the Convention of October, 1785, 
proves that the settlement of a Bishop in each State was the purpose 
and intent of the framers of the constitution at the time of the form- 
ulation of their first draft of that instrument, and that they recognized 
the right and duty of the States to proceed in that matter. 

What effect the course already pursued in Connecticut may have 
had upon the settlement of this intent and recognition, clearly dis- 
tinguishable from the previous floating ideas of arrangement of clergy 
and laity in convenient districts, and associated congregations in two 



THE CIVIL ANALOGY. 197 

representative, and compare them with the civil institu- 
tions previously completed, we shall find a series of 

or more States, one can only conjecture. But as a matter of fact, 
and therefore of historical interest, the course here recommended to 
the conventions of the Church in the respective States had been already 
in substance complied with in Connecticut ; for (i) Dr. Seabury had 
been elected by a convention of the Connecticut clergy at Woodbury, 
March 25, 1783 ; (2) though not elected by the laity, he had, on his 
return from Scotland in August, 1785, been received in the character 
of their Bishop implicitly by loyal acceptance of him as such ; (3) a 
committee of the Convention of Connecticut, qualified to represent 
the Church in that State, had respectfully addressed the civil rulers 
thereof with reference to the attitude of the civil government in 
respect to the settlement of a Bishop in that State, and had been 
assured by leading members of both houses of the Assembly that the 
act already passed by the Legislature comprehended all the legal 
rights and powers intended to be given by their constitution to any 
denomination of Christians, and included all that was needed for the 
allowance of a Bishop within the State (" Conn. Ch. Documents," 
Hawks & Perry, ii. 224-226) ; and (4) the first and third of these 
facts were certainly with due diligence, respect, explanation, and 
iteration presented to "their Lordships " throughout the period of 
sixteen months preceding the final discouragement of the Bishop- 
elect in that quarter, and the favorable action upon the request of 
Connecticut by the Bishops of the Scottish Church. 

The influence of so recent and conspicuous an example, based upon 
the principle recognized by the Convention of October, 1785, of the 
right and duty of the Church in each State to seek completion in the 
Episcopate, is certainly worthy of consideration, and can hardly be 
overestimated. 

Indeed, the account given by Bishop White of these resolutions, 
drafted by himself, indicates that, as to one point, the example of 
Bishop Seabury served at least as a warning. "As to Bishop Sea- 
bury's failure in England," he says, "the causes of it, as stated in his 
letter, seemed to point out a way of obviating the difficulty in the 
present case." And he adds : " It was a prudent provision for the 
Convention to instruct the deputies from the respective States to 
apply to the civil authorities existing in them i-espectively for their 



198 ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY, 

parallels which it would be unreasonable to regard as 
accidental, or other than evidence of an intentional con- 
formity or adaptation of the Church in the arrangement 
of its external administration to the civil system in which 
its lot was cast. Some learned Bingham of a future 
century will very probably observe, that to understand 
aright the state and division of this Church, it will be 
proper to take a short view of the state and division of 
the Republic of the United States, since it plainly held 
some conformity to that in its external policy and gov- 
ernment, both at its first settlement and in the changes 
and variations which were made in after ages ; though 
in these matters of conveniency and outward order the 
Church did not tie itself absolutely to follow that model, 
but only so far as it judged expedient and conducive to 
the ends of its own spiritual government and discipline. 
It will be necessary, however, for this prospective histo- 
rian impartially to record the fact, that there were in this 
Church some persons replete with godly and good learn- 
ing who could never be brought to see this conformity ; 
and who, contrary to all the teachings of history, in 
which they were well versed, persisted in thinking that 
this Church was an exception to the general rule of civil 
analogy which had prevailed from the time of the Apos- 



sanction of the measure, in order to avoid one of the impediments 
which had stood in the way of Bishop Seabury." (" Memoirs," pp. 
loi, 102.) From the statement in Bishop Seabury's letter, however, 
to which Bishop White apparently refers, it appears that something 
more than sanction was exacted in his case, to wit, " a formal requi- 
sition from the State."' {Cf. Bishop Seabury's letter, printed in the 
" Memoirs," pp. 286-292.) Obviously, the Connecticut case was well 
in mind, and its lessons were inwardly digested. Nor was the Con- 
vention of 1785 the only pupil in the school of prudence — though 
that belongs to another subject. 



THE CIVIL ANALOGY. I99 

ties to its foundation, and that there was something 
derogatory to its claim to a true Apostolicity and Catho- 
licity in the admission of such a possibility. 

Perhaps, however, instead of following the method of 
Bingham and endeavoring to take a view of the state 
and division of the Republic of the United States, and 
a corresponding view of the arrangement of the Church, 
it will be more simple and brief to state directly the 
parallels which have been referred to, pointing out the 
correspondence in these particulars. 

(a) In the first place there is to be noted the parallel 
of federation. It has already been pointed out, that, in 
the process of arranging a common government for the 
Church in this country, the Church was recognized as 
having an independent existence in the respective States. 
This independence was of a similar character to that 
which has been noticed as belonging to the individual 
Bishop, or to the Diocese of primitive times ; that is to 
say, it was not an absolute independence, which made its' 
possessor capable of being or doing anything that might 
be desired. It involved no freedom from the analogy of 
the common faith and order of Christ's institution, but 
within the restraints of that common faith and order, the 
Church in each State was free and independent of the 
control of the Church in any other State. The associa- 
tion for the purpose of a common government was an 
association by representation ; and the constituency of 
that representation was the Church in the State. There 
was no common power with recognized authority to 
direct or enforce, or even constrain and influence, these 
constituencies to a common association. The associa- 
tion was therefore voluntary and federative. 

Bishop White makes some observations upon the point 



200 ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. 

of the need and motive of the organization of the 
Ecclesiastical Union, which it will be useful and inter- 
esting to consider here, on account of the important and 
suggestive bearing which they have upon the question 
of the nature of the constituency of which that union 
was composed. In defending the policy of organiza- 
tion which had been acted on, against a prejudice noted 
on the part of some, that nothing should be done in 
this direction until the obtaining of the Episcopacy, he 
says : 

" Certainly the different Episcopal congregations knew 
of no union before the Revolution, except what was the 
result of the connection which they in common had with 
the Bishop of London. The authority of that bishop 
being withdrawn, what right had the Episcopalians in 
any State, or in any one part of it, to choose a bishop for 
those in any other ? And until an union were effected, 
what is there in Christianity generally, or in the prin- 
ciples of this Church in particular, to hinder them from 
taking different courses in different places, as to all things 
not necessary to salvation ? Which might have produced 
different liturgies, different articles, Episcopacy from 
different sources, and, in short, very many churches, in- 
stead of one extending over the United States ; and that 
without any ground for the charge of schism or of the 
invasion of one another's rights. The course taken has 
embraced all the different congregations. It is far from 
being certain that the same event would have been pro- 
duced by any other plan that might have been devised. 
For instance, let it be supposed that in any district in 
Connecticut the clergy and the people, not satisfied with 
the choice made of Bishop Seabury or with the con- 
templated plan of settlement, had acted for themselves 



THE CIVIL ANALOGY. 2oI 

instead of joining with their brethren. It would be 
impossible to prove the unlawfulness of such a scheme ; 
or, until an organization were made, that the minor part 
were bound to submit to the will of the majority. There 
was no likelihood of such an indiscreet proceeding in 
Connecticut ; but in some other departments which might 
be named it would not have been surprising. Let it be 
remarked that in the preceding hypothesis there is sup- 
posed to have been, in the different neighborhoods, a 
bond of union not dissolved by the Revolution. This 
sentiment is congenial with Christianity itself and with 
Christian discipline in the beginning, the connection not 
existing congregationally, but in every instance without 
dependence on the houses in which the worship of the 
different portions of the aggregate body may be carried 
on." — Memoirs^ pp. 98, 99, 

The venerable Bishop's opinion, that the withdrawal of 
the authority of the Bishop of London involved the pos- 
sibility of the assertion of individual and congregational 
independence is in itself true, and his attributing to or- 
ganization the effectual power of preserving order and 
preventing that chaos is also true. Without organization 
nothing could have hindered the production and perpet- 
uation of that diversity which he forecasts. By organi- 
zation he evidently intends the Ecclesiastical Union. But 
whether that particular organization was necessary to 
prevent the disintegration which he describes, to the ex- 
tent to which he apprehends it, must, of course, depend 
upon the previous question whether any organization 
apart from such union, and in the several members of it, 
was antecedently possible, or probable. The want of the 
organization of the Union would, of course, have made 
possible the continuance of independent existence in 



202 ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. 

its several parts. The fact of organization in any of those 
parts would have been as effectual a preservative against 
such individualism in that part, as the Union proved to 
be against the extension of the same evil in other parts. 
The hypothesis in the case of Connecticut can only be 
in part admitted to be lawfully possible. If the clergy 
by whom Bishop Seabury was elected were not in a 
proper sense representative of the Church in Connecticut, 
the case of differing action by such part of the Church 
in that State as was not represented might be supposable ; 
but since the clergy were the clergy of the Church in 
that State, ten out of fourteen acting, and the other four 
not objecting, the proceeding involves such organization 
in that State as would prevent the diversity supposed 
lawfully possible by Bishop White. An opposing organi- 
zation by laymen in that State, had such indiscretion 
been supposable, would have been schism pure and 
simple. The clergy had jurisdiction over their people, 
received by their ordination and lawful settlement ; and 
when their Bishop was withdrawn from them, their duty 
to their people involved and justified their proceeding 
to procure another. So much power of organization must 
be on Church principles presumed to have been inherent 
in the clergy of any district, for preserving themselves 
and their people in the unity of the Church Catholic ; 
although the association would involve no obligation 
upon those in other parts or districts to conform to them. 
But, given the fact of such association in one part, the 
combination of this part with similar associations in other 
parts in an Ecclesiastical Union prevented the diversity 
of rule and usage in all the parts, or in the lesser elements 
of which they were respectively composed ; and there 
is, probably, no other possible course which would have 



THE CIVIL ANALOGY. 203 

been at all likely to produce the same result, as Bishop 
White, with his usual practical wisdom, discerned. 

In fact, that which saved the Church from the diversity, 
if not disintegration, which is here so clearly indicated, 
was the organization of the Ecclesiastical Union, as being 
the combination of organizations of a diocesan character 
within the States. It is very possible, indeed, that Bishop 
White, for his part, regarded such combination as furnish- 
ing only the most feasible mode of carrying into effect 
his original project of clergy and laity organized in con- 
venient districts. It is even probable that, in his own 
personal views, he regarded the adoption of this mode 
as a condescension and concession to what, in the latter 
part of his life, he called "that excessive attachment to 
the peculiarities of the different States," above which, 
" when the constitution was framed, the public mind had 
not y^t raised itself " (p. 391). From whatever height, 
however, he may have viewed the mode, he could not 
overlook it, nor do better than utilize what he could not 
alter ; and, accordingly, this was the actual mode by 
which organization was enabled to constitute the Eccle- 
siastical Union. Most likely the Connecticut example 
crystallized the diocesan State idea, which was em- 
bedded in the public mind of the day. But, from what- 
ever influences, there it was, in the ore of the system 
when it was first moulded into the form which it ever 
after retained. And while, in the process, we may grate- 
fully attribute much to the wisdom of the poHcy of influ- 
ential men, we must attribute still more to the overruling 
hand of the Divine Providence which had prepared the 
way for these men to walk in ; and which they could not 
help following, if they simply acted upon the principles 
which were inherent in the system under which they were 



204 ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. 

living. These principles were mainly and eminently 
three in number, and they are very important to be 
noted. They were : 

1. The principle of neighborhood ; of which Bishop 
White well remarks that it constituted, in the present 
case, " a bond of union not dissolved by the Revolution 

congenial with Christianity itself, and with 
Christian discipline in the beginning ; " in which dis- 
cipline the jurisdiction of the single Bishop was called 
his TtapoiKia, for that very reason, because it in- 
cluded the neighborhood of the place where his seat 
was. 

2. The principle of allegiance to civil rulers ; by which 
the extent or limit of neighborhood becomes more settled 
and ascertainable ; neighborhood, like every other qual- 
ity, being comparative ; and requiring, for purposes of 
organization, some determination and settlement. , This 
was easily suggested, and naturally furnished by the claim 
of the civil authority existing in the State to the alle- 
giance of all who were within the circuit of that common 
obligation ; and was emphatically singled out and dis- 
criminated from combinations of smaller range by the 
association of those States as the units of the larger com- 
bination of the civil union. 

3. The principle of dependence upon the Episcopate ; 
the jurisdiction of which, naturally, and in accordance 
with the Divinely inspired policy manifest in the original 
settlement of the Christian Church, has an affinity to the 
civil jurisdiction ; seizing instinctively upon the salient 
points of the civil administration and operating from 
them ; the same instinct which settled the jurisdiction of 
the Bishop in the chief city of the province of primitive 
times, being here apparent in the association of the same 



THE CIVIL ANALOGY. 205 

jurisdiction with the State, as the conspicuous unit of the 
civil system in the time of this organization. 

These are principles of such a nature as to have a sure, 
though silent, and in part unrecognized, influence. They 
are principles able to have produced the consequence 
which in fact took place, being so congenial to the causes 
of results accomplished that it is difficult to separate them. 
That they were chiefly instrumental in guiding the steps 
of Bishop White himself, seems, from the progress and 
issue of the history, impossible to doubt. He being i?i 
the way^ the Lord led him to the house of his Master s 
brethren. 

The jurisdiction of the English Episcopate, which, prior 
to the Revolution, had such a recognized common au- 
thority as made the formal federative association of the 
Church in the colonies unnecessary, and the withdrawal of 
which opened the way for those possibilities of disinte- 
gration which were so apparent to Bishop White, being 
incapable of exercise during the war, had been in abey- 
ance : and at the close of the war it was still incapable 
of exercise, and all claim to it was abandoned. And, the 
Church in each State being in the position of a Diocese 
temporarily deprived of its Diocesan, each State had a 
right to seek its own completion by obtaining a Bishop 
from those qualified to consecrate him ; and it had also 
the right to associate itself with the Church in other 
States first, and procure its completion by the addition 
of the Episcopate afterwards. Had the first course been 
pursued by all, they would all have been united by the 
federation of their Bishops, acting in the ordinary course 
of the Episcopate in the way of common association, 
whenever and in so far as circumstances might require 
such association ; and as the obtaming of the Episcopate 



2o6 ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. 

was a work of time, involving much doubt and anxiety, 
the same right of association cannot be denied to have 
been possessed by the churches preparatory to the ac- 
quirement of Bishops. In fact, the right to move in 
both these directions not only existed, but was recog- 
nized and exercised. And it is to this providential fact 
that we owe the blending of the two ideas which are 
fundamental in our complex system, and without dis- 
cernment of which we shall fail to find the clue to it. 
For the Episcopal system, which contemplates a com- 
mission to govern proceeding from the Head downward, 
and the conventional system, which contemplates a per- 
mission to govern proceeding from the members upward, 
are here combined in one ; and together produce a gov- 
ernment wherein the just authority steadies itself by the 
consent of the governed. And what we owe to Connec- 
ticut for the courageous faith which acted on the one 
idea, is balanced by what we owe to Pennsylvania for 
the devout wisdom which acted on the other. 

The Church in the State of Connecticut sought first to 
complete itself by procuring a Bishop, Dr. Seabury being 
elected to that office by the Connecticut clergy on the 
Feast of the Annunciation in 1783, and being received by 
the clergy and laity of that Church as their Bishop on his 
return to that State after consecration (November 14, 
1784) by the Bishops of ''the Catholic remainder of the 
ancient Church of Scotland; " and thus completely consti- 
tuted, the Church in Connecticut awaited the issue of the 
movement in other States, and in due time, being satis- 
fied that sufficient safeguards were provided for the 
preservation of the common faith and order, accepted 
the invitation of those churches in other States which 
had already associated themselves, and in 1789 attached 



THE CIVIL ANALOGY. 207 

itself to the union thus formed.* The case of Connecti- 
cut alone, and the history of its relation to the movement 
for the union of the churches in other States, is sufficient 
to establish the federal idea in that union, and to show 
that it was the absolutely controlling moral force in the 
establishment of the Ecclesiastical Union. But that the 
case of Connecticut is not solitary in this evidence ap- 
pears from the facts, first, that the movement towards 
the association accomplished in 1789 began to take shape 
in a voluntary meeting of clergymen of New York, New 
Jersey, and Pennsylvania in May, 1784, who determined 
to procure a larger meeting in the October following, " to 
confer and agree on some general principles of an union 
of the Episcopal Church throughout the States ; " f second, 
that the movement proceeded through the combination 
of the churches in seven only of the thirteen then exist- 
ing States ; t and third, that the body representing the 



* It should not be understood from this statement that either the 
Bishop or the Diocese of Connecticut in any way held aloof from the 
Union, or cherished ideas of opposition to it. The case was quite 
otherwise. But certain grave apprehensions of unchurchly tendencies 
in the Middle and Southern States were entertained in the Eastern 
States. Bishop "White thought that these were not altogether well- 
founded, but they existed, and the attitude described in the text re- 
sulted. Bishop Seabury addressed a letter of welcome, expressive 
of his desire to cooperate, both to Bishop White and Bishop Pro- 
vost, immediately upon their return home after consecration in 1787. 
Bishop White replied with courtesy, though with seeming coolness ; 
Bishop Provost apparently not at all. Organization had been pro- 
ceeding in both quarters. Each invited the other to conference. 
The organization in Connecticut was at this time complete. That 
of the Church in other States was still in process of completion. 
After it was actually complete for the churches engaged in it, i.e.^ 
in August, 1789, the invitation by it to Connecticut was accepted. 

f Bishop White's " Memoirs," p. 22. % lb., p. 22. 



2o8 ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. 

churches in these seven States, in 1786 appointed a com- 
mittee to forward its minutes and proceedings " to the 
Eastern and other churches not included in this union, to 
notify to them the time and place to which this conven- 
tion shall adjourn, and request their attendance at the 
same for the good purposes of u?iion and general govern- 
ment." * The churches in the States other than the first 
seven acceded to the union at different times afterward, 
the accession of North Carolina not taking place until 
many years after the accession of Connecticut. The 
federal character of this Ecclesiastical Union is indeed 
so plain that it seems an unnecessary weariness to go 
over the tedious labor of producing evidence for it. 
Nothing but what the future Bingham must inevitably 
regard as the extraordinary pre-judgment of some most 
honored and most learned churchmen who, under the 
bias of a misconceived and misapplied analogy between 
the General Convention of this Church and the national 
or provincial councils of churches of other times, have 
thought it necessary to find in that representative body 
the inherent sovereignty which they seem erroneously 
to have attributed to other conciliary bodies of the 
Church, could prevent the obvious conclusion from 
the facts of history that what was here constituted in 
1789 was an Ecclesiastical Union, accomplished by the 
federation of independent churches, potentially if not 
actually complete, and that the governing body brought 
into existence by that federation, although absolutely 
supreme within the sphere appointed to it, was the 
recipient of powers delegated, and not the source or 
origin of powers inherent. 



* Bioren's Ed. "Journals of Gen. Conv.," p. 64. 



THE CIVIL ANALOGY. 209 

' And in regard to the civil system, and the essentially 
federal character of its original organization, the simple 
facts — apart from the use to which in practice they may 
have been subjected — are these : Firsts that the American 
Colonies united themselves in a confederacy, of which 
they were respectively the independent component parts ; 
second, that they were, at the conclusion of the Revolu- 
tionary war, formally recognized by Great Britain as 
free, sovereign, and independent States ; * and third^ 



* "His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, 
viz. : New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Provi- 
dence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, 
Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and 
Georgia, to be Free, Sovereign, and Independent States ; that he 
treats with them as such ; and for himself, his heirs and successors, 
relinquishes all claim to the government, propriety, and territorial 
rights of the same, and every part thereof " (Art. I., Treaty of Peace 
of 1783). 

Had it not been necessary that this acknowledgment should be of 
the States respectively constituting the United States, it would have 
been the simple and obviously sufficient course to have acknowledged 
the nation of the United States to be a free and independent sover- 
eignty. But in fact, the war of the Revolution, as is well remarked 
by Chief Justice Shea, "did not make nor leave the United States a 
nation ; except on the presupposition which, by a sort of theory, 
enabled them to act as such in their first diplomatic negotiation with 
England" (" Life and Epoch of Alexander Hamilton," p. 63). 

"The commissioners felt that the very idea of nationality in the 
negotiation of a treaty was desirable and necessary. To the English 
the point was one of procedure merely. Not so to the United 
States. The negotiations finally went on with the Office for Foreign 
Affairs. Those and other statesmen were not deceived. It was 
better policy though, just then, to act upon the apparent, rather than 
to insist upon the real, fact. To the exterior world the United 
States presented the semblance of unity. Between the States them- 
selves it was scarcely acknowledged. The unity of the States in any 
14 



2IO ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. 

that in the exercise of this freedom, sovereignty, and 
independence, with respect to each other, and to all other 
states or kingdoms of this world, they proceeded, after 
years of deliberation and consideration, voluntarily, though 
after much persuasion and hesitation, to form a more 
perfect union than they had before constituted, by which 
they established a general government, which was clothed 
with powers supreme within the sphere appointed to it — 
having what it is believed no mere confederacy ever had, 
and what certainly the American Confederacy had not, 
the authority to act within its sphere upon the individual 
directly and immediately, instead of indirectly and medi- 
ately through the several States united — and yet, with all 
its supremacy, not having, as in the nature of things it 
could not have, one single power inherent in it and not 
delegated to it. 

The proper application of these facts to questions of 
the relations of the States between themselves, and of 
the relations of the General Government both to the 
States and to their individual members, lies within the 
range of the responsibility of those whose duty it is to 
administer the affairs of government. It is of the nature 
of those things which, in accordance with the precept of 
the Divine Master, we may cheerfully " render unto 
Caesar." But when in the course of the Divine Provi- 
dence Caesar has been transmuted from an individual 
to a multiform personality, and diffused among the com- 
munity, as is the case where the sovereignty of the civil 
authority is recognized as lodged in the people, it must 



national sense was an empty theory. Pride, policy, and patriotism 
had nerved the American commissioners to insist on the ideal. But 
they knew, and intelligent people in Europe knew, that the thing 
itself did not exist " (^Ib. , p. 66) . 



THE CIVIL ANALOGY. 21 1 

needs be that such questions will be determined by the 
judgment of the people, under such influences of reason 
as may from time to time be brought to bear upon them, 
under the exigencies to which they may from time to 
time be subjected. The love of country is an instinct of 
human nature ; nor, indeed, is the law from which it 
springs limited in its operation only to man. Even the 
brute creation is conscious of the home feeling ; while 
the growth and verdure of the plant which adorns the 
surface of the earth, and the form and nature of the 
mineral which fills the vast storehouse of subterranean 
recesses, are affected by their relation to the region to 
which the Creator has appointed them. But the kindred 
instinct in man is possessed and used by him as a being 
endowed with reason ; and the love of country in him 
must always be modified in form and expression by his 
judgment in regard to what his country is, and what he 
desires it to be. Thus, what seem to some to be traits 
of peculiar excellence, may be regarded by others as 
weaknesses or blemishes ; and some will be bent upon 
the development and application of one theory, and 
some will be addicted to another ; the love of country 
actuating both in proportion to the purity and unselfish- 
ness of the individual. The object of the present in- 
quiry, recognizing the diverse operations of the human 
heart and mind in this respect, is simply the ascertainment 
of facts in the civil system correspondent to facts in the 
ecclesiastical system. It is no part of its scope to trace 
the progress of what by some may be regarded as mis- 
conception and misrepresentation of those facts, and by 
others as their legitimate development. The observation, 
however, may perhaps be permitted, and in candor 
allowed to proceed from an honest love of country, that 



212 ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. 

it is greatly to be desired that these facts should be 
clearly understood and well borne in mind, as a safe- 
guard against both imperializing and democratizing 
influences, which, though at enmity with each other, are 
willing to make themselves friends together in their 
common misapprehension and distrust of those truly 
republican principles on which alone the hope of man- 
kind for the permanence of a system providing for the 
just and beneficent government of society by itself can 
with safety repose ; and to illustrate and maintain which 
the American system was anointed — if any ruler or sys- 
tem of government ever could be said to have been — 
with the special unction of a Divine mission. 

But what has been said will suffice to evince the par- 
allel between the civil and ecclesiastical systems under 
consideration in respect of the principle of federation.* 



* It is presumed that the intelligent reader will understand that 
the terms federal, democratic, and republican are here used simply 
as expressive of ideas properly denoted by them, and entirely without 
regard to the significance attached to them in the designation of 
political parties. It is a matter of some curious interest, however, 
to note the divergence of political usage from the original and 
proper meaning of words in the descriptive titles of American parties. 
The Federal party, so called, was composed of those who were the 
earnest advocates of the union of the States as opposed to their con- 
tinued independence, and whose views, more or less affected by 
monarchical traditions, looked toward the building up and mainte- 
nance of a strong central government in that union, for which, in 
their construction of the Constitution, there was sufficient authority, 
either expressed or implied. Their tendency toward centralization 
was resisted by the party commonly called Democratic, not at all by 
the advocacy of the political rights of the mass of the people as such 
— which that name might be supposed to indicate — but by insistence 
upon the reserved rights of the constituent members of the Federal 
Union — that is to say, the States ; for which reason, presumably, 



THE CIVIL ANALOGY. 213 

{h) The next parallel noted may be called the parallel 
of organization^ which term is here used to denote the 
establishment of the organic law regulating the form and 
manner of operation of the Church representative in the 
United States, considered with reference not only to its 
individual members, but also to the Church representative 
existing in the dioceses respectively. 

The law which defines the organic structure of a body 
and contains the fundamental principles on which it must 
act is called its constitution. We understand the con- 
stitution of the Church of Christ to have been settled by- 
Christ, and the Apostles acting under the guidance of the 
Holy Spirit. This constitution is unwritten and tradi- 
tional, although Holy Scripture furnishes evidence of its 
form in agreement with the witness of tradition. The 
canons of the early Church in the age of unity were 
enacted in subordination to this common unwritten con- 
stitution, and are to some extent evidence of it ; and 
upon this constitution the Church of Christ, in its every 
integral portion, is dependent. 

Without special agreement, the relation of the several 
dioceses of the Church in any country would rest on the 
basis of this original unwritten constitution ; and there is 
no reason to imagine that the dioceses of the Church in 
this country — or the Churches within the States respect- 
ively — held after the independence of these States a 



the party took care to associate the word republican with that of 
democratic in their title, though the former word, in common par- 
lance, is ignored. Thus the rights which were truly and properly 
federal came to be urged against the Federal party, whose centripetal 
tendencies, balancing Democratic centrifugalism, have been, not ex- 
actly inherited, but re-presented by the Republican party of later 
years. 



214 ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. 

different position. They were, as has been so often 
urged, absolutely dependent upon that constitution, 
whatever might have been their independence in other 
respects. Nor has there ever been anything to prevent 
the representatives of any group of dioceses anywhere 
from associating themselves under the formal sanction 
of a written instrument regulating the fundamental prin- 
ciples of their associated action, subject to their obli- 
gation to the common unwritten constitution ; nor to 
prevent this written instrument from being called a 
constitution, it being recognized that it determined the 
organic law only of the association. The very natural 
and sufficient reason why in the previous history of the 
Church there is no such action apparent as that taken 
in this country, is that there has never been the same 
occasion for it. Had the Churches in these States been 
provided with Bishops, the administration of the affairs 
of the Church under the common constitution might 
sufficiently have been carried on without other law than 
that of the canons usual under ordinary circumstances. 
But the Churches originally concerned in this association 
were at the time actually without Bishops ; and entering, 
as they did, without ecclesiastical precedent, upon the 
organization of a common administration, it was natural 
and justifiable that they should put the evidence of the 
fundamental principles of their association on record in 
the form of a solemn instrument in writing. 

The questions of interest in the present connection are 
as to the source from which they drew the name of that 
instrument, and what the name in their use of it imports. 

Bishop White, in referring to the draft of 1785, speaks 
of it as a " General Constitution." * The drafts of 1785 

* " Memoirs," p. 96, 2d ed. 



THE CIVIL ANALOGY. ■ 215 

and 1786 are headed respectively "A General Ecclesias- 
tical Constitution " and " A General Constitution " " of 
the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of 
America." * In its completed form, in 1789, the instru- 
ment is entitled in August " A General Constitution," 
and in October " The Constitution " " of the Protestant 
Episcopal Church in the United States of America." f 
In two or three places the instrument is made to refer 
to itself as "this constitution." There is an opinion 
among some who have imbibed the notion of an in- 
herent sovereignty in General Convention, that this term 
is to be understood in the same sense as the word 
"constitutions" in ecclesiastical terminology, as it is 
common to speak, for example, of the constitutions of 
Otho and Othobon ; and it is thence argued that this 
constitution is, although conceded to be of more sol- 
emn import and more difficult of change than ordinary 
canons, essentially a canon dealing with organization, 
not with powers and functions. So far as the argument 
depends upon the opinion, it may safely be left to take 
care of itself. But one reason given for regarding this 
constitution as of an essentially different character from 
what is in this connection called the National Constitu- 
tion, is that the National Constitution actually constructs 
or constitutes the nation ; whereas the ecclesiastical con- 
stitution does not construct or constitute the Church, 
but is constituted or made a constitution by the Church, 
which exists of Divine right independently of all human 
constitutions ; which is a reason very good to be refuted, 
but really good for nothing else. To speak of a consti- 
tution, considered as an instrument in writing, as having 

* Bioren, pp. 8, 23. 

\ " Journals," Bioren's ed., pp. 61, 75. 



2l6 ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. 

a creative force, is an allowable use of language if it be 
understood that that force proceeds from the power by 
which the instrument is set forth ; but certainly it can 
be no otherwise true that such an instrument creates or 
constitutes than that it is the evidence of the creative 
or constructive act — as we properly say that a deed is a 
conveyance, meaning only that it is the evidence of the 
act of a grantor. And if we look a little deeper, -and 
regard a constitution not as a written instrument, but as 
the mode, or quality, or kind, or essential condition of 
the existence of any body politic or natural, we cannot 
say that the constitution creates the body, any more than 
that the body creates the constitution. The constitution 
in this view is an intrinsic property of the body, and is 
created with it by the same power which creates it. In 
either view, it is not strictly true, but true only by way 
of analogy, that the constitution creates a state or na- 
tion. It is, indeed, the law of its organism, the organic 
law in accordance with which it operates ; but that law is 
imposed upon it by the power which creates it. In itself, 
it neither has nor can have a creative force. And if we 
apply this to the Constitution of the United States, we 
must allow that this constitution did not create the 
Union, but is the written evidence of that exercise of 
power by which it was created. The same thing pre- 
cisely is true of the constitution of the Ecclesiastical 
Union, which did not create that union, but is the written 
evidence of the exercise of that power by which it w^as 
created. And as to the Church being incapable of being 
constituted or constructed, that depends on the sense in 
which the word church is used.* If it be used in the 



* " There is no word or term used either in any scientifical, 
moral, or popular discourse, which hath so many, so much different 



THE CIVIL ANALOGY. 517 

sense of a society already Divinely constituted or con- 
structed, of course it is incapable of being constituted 
because it is constituted. But if it be used in the sense 
of a body representatively composed, by the union of 
parts or portions having a lawful independent existence 
according to its original Divine constitution, then the 
Church in some certain form of its representative being 
is capable of being constituted, just as much as the State 
in some certain form is capable of being constituted. 
For it is as true of the State as it is of the Church, 
abstractly considered, that it exists of Divine right inde- 
pendently of all human constitutions. And though it be 
true that the form in which the State exists is not deter- 
mined by the Divine Will, and that the form in which the 
Church exists is determined by the Divine Will, yet it 
does not follow that, in regard to such matters as formal 
association and representation of its constitutionally in- 
dependent parts, the Church is less free than the State is ; 
nor that it is less capable of being representatively con- 
stituted in some particular form and combination, or that 
being so constituted, it would cease to be the Church 
acting under certain conditions. 

But, to descend from this somewhat rarefied meta- 
physical air to the atmosphere of more practical con- 
siderations, it is to be noted as a matter of fact, y^ri-/, 
that at the time of the adoption of this written constitu- 
tion of the Ecclesiastical Union the word " constitution " 
had a common and distinctly recognized political signifi- 
cation both in England and in this country ; and that 
during the process of the formation of this Union — from 

significations or importances, as the word church hath, whether we 
take it in the Greek, Latin, or English" (Jackson, Works, vol. xii., 
p. 7, ed. 1844). 



21b ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. 

1784 to 1789— the adoption of a constitution of the 
Union of the States was the pervading and prominent 
subject of discussion, and actually took place. There 
does not seem, therefore, any necessity for sending the 
founders of the Ecclesiastical Union back to the days of 
Otho and Othobon to look for a name for the instrument 
embodying the principles on which the Union was to act, 
when there was a name directly before them describing 
an instrument drawn to meet the case of the political 
union in the same States in which it was sought to unite 
the Church. 

A second fact to be noted in this parallel is that in the 
process of the completion of the Ecclesiastical Constitu- 
tion there appear certain changes in the plan of its 
construction correspondent to changes in constitutional 
provisions of the civil system. 

The Civil Constitution was set forth by the convention 
which framed it in 1787, and the Ecclesiastical Constitu- 
tion in 1789. Both instruments, indeed, have been sub- 
sequently amended ; but they were respectively set forth 
at these several dates. There are various points of cor- 
respondence which will be noted hereafter, but what is 
noted at present is the correspondence between changes 
introduced into the proposed ecclesiastical plan, and 
changes previously introduced into the civil system. 

In the draft Ecclesiastical Constitution of 1786, Article 
II. did not provide for a vote by orders ; but, while per- 
mitting a clerical and lay representation, directed that, 
in all questions, the Church in each State should have 
one vote, and that a majority of suffrages should be con- 
clusive. (Art. II.) This draft contemplated the General 
Convention only as one House, providing that in every 
State where there should be a Bishop who should have 



The civil analogy. 219 

acceded to the Constitution, such Bishop should be ex 
officio a member of that house. (Art. V.) * 

The Constitution of the United States had not then 
been adopted. But the Articles of Confederation, which 
had been in existence since 1777, provided for the sitting 
of Congress as one House, and gave to each State one 
vote in that legislative body. 

In 1789 (two years after the adoption of the United 
States Constitution) appears in the Ecclesiastical Con- 
stitution the provision for the two Houses of General 
Convention, and the giving of one vote to each order 
(clerical and lay) of the Church in a State, instead of 
one vote to the Church in each State, thus securing 
(though by a different method, more suitable to the plan 
of the Church) that triple consent to legislative action 
which the United States Constitution provided for in the 
concurrence of the two Houses of Congress with the 
executive, and which, though an idea of the English 
Constitution, had found no expression in the Articles of 
Confederation. 

The correspondence of these changes in the ecclesi- 
astical system with changes which had been previously 
accomplished in the civil system, indicates with sufficient 
plainness the model upon which the organic law of the 
ecclesiastical association was based ; and suggests fur- 
ther the thought that the ecclesiastical system, after it 
had begun to be organized, passed like the civil system 
through the stage of confederacy before it finally entered 
upon the stage of union. 

A third fact it is proper to note in connection with the 
parallel in regard to the organic law of the civil and 



* Bioren, pp. 24, 25. 



5 20 ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. 

ecclesiastical unions, and that is, that there is a remark- 
able analogy between the mode by which that law in 
both cases was made capable of alteration. In the civil 
system it is provided that alterations in the Constitution 
are to be effected by the joint action of Congress and 
three-fourths of the States. (U. S. Const., Art. V.) 
In the ecclesiastical system such alterations are to be 
effected in General Convention, by the Church in a 
majority of the States which may have adopted the same ; 
action taken in one General Convention to be notified to 
the several State Conventions, and ratified and agreed 
to in the ensuing General Convention.* In other words, 
the two systems contemplate (though with a difference 
in the process) substantially the same thing, viz.: the 
concurrent consent, to such alterations, of two classes of 
actors ; the one being the legislative body, the other be- 
ing a fixed proportion of the constituent elements of the 
Union represented in that body. 

With regard to the question of powers conferred, as to 
which the analogy has been thought to be weak, it is 
to be observed that there is no reason to expect the same 
strictness and detail of specification in the constitution 
of an Ecclesiastical Union as would be necessary in the 
constitution of a Civil Union. Under the circumstances 
attending the constitutional establishment of the General 
Convention, much, no doubt, would be taken for granted. 
Some defects of arrangement might be overlooked, pro- 
vided that the substantial purpose of union was attained. 
The feeling that those who were combining their ecclesi- 
astical interests were all basing their lives upon professed 
principles of Christian love which would be a safeguard 



Bioren, p. 77 (Art. IX., of 1789). 



THE CIVIL ANALOGY. 221 

against jealousies, animosities, and mutual exactions, 
might justly have weight. And the further feeling that, 
whatever difficulties might be in the way of formal union, 
whatever construction might be put upon formal pro- 
visions, the members of the Church in the several States 
were united already in the one Church of Christ's foun- 
dation, might account for some want of system. But 
beyond all cavil, the constitution established by the Dio- 
ceses is the sufficient evidence (i) of the creation of the 
General Convention, and of the gift to it of a Supreme 
Authority, and (2) of limitations both as to the sphere 
in which it is to operate, and as to the extent of its oper- 
ation in that sphere. 

Those who constituted the General Convention were 
competent to define and specify its powers ; or to con- 
stitute it for a certain class of powers, and leave it un- 
limited in the exercise of them ; or to constitute it for a 
certain class of powers, particularly specifying some, and 
to impose upon it certain limitations in the exercise of 
its powers. The last of these three courses is what 
appears to have been chosen. The constitution contem- 
plates the General Convention as possessed of legislative 
power. The acts which are adopted are to have the 
operation of law. But there are limitations imposed by 
the constitution upon the exercise of this power. The 
consideration of Article II., as originally adopted in 1789, 
is sufficient to establish this principle. The article con- 
tains the most general grant of power which the repre- 
sentative body has received. The power, however, is 
not conveyed by the formal statement that the General 
Convention is authorized to do certain things, or all 
things of a certain kind, but it is, with equal effect, 
conferred in a different way ; that is, by the abandon- 



2 22 ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. 

ment on the part of the Dioceses of any right of objec- 
tion to acts of the General Convention consummated in 
the specified way. A fuller and more exclusive grant of 
power it would be difficult to make ; and the only limita- 
tion upon it, so far as this article is concerned, is that 
the acts shall be adopted in the method prescribed. 

There are, of course, other limitations, as well as 
powers specifically expressed ; but having regard to the 
original act of adoption, as having the most direct bear- 
ing on the present question, the reference to this article 
and to Article III. is sufficient to show that in the forma- 
tion of the ecclesiastical system, as well as of the civil 
system, powers of legislation were granted to a repre- 
sentative body, which establishes the substance of the 
analogy. If the Churches in the States were willing to 
trust more to their representative body, than the States 
had trusted to theirs, that surely is not out of harmony 
with the different character of the two powers : the sub- 
stance of the analogy, nevertheless, holds here as else- 
where.* 



* Dr. Vinton (" Manual Commentary," pp. 79, 80) lays great stress 
upon the fact that ten canons were adopted by General Convention 
in August, 1789, as an evidence that that body possessed legislative 
authority over the whole Church throughout the country, independ- 
ently of any derivation from the Church in the States through the 
constitution. He does not adduce the action as evidence merely of 
the sup7'emacy of the legislative authority of General Convention, but 
he further infers and insists that these canons were imposed by the 
members of the General Convention by the "plenipotentiary and 
original powers of legislation by which they were invested by the 
members of the Church"; and that " General Convention had the 
authority in the premises as being the whole Protestant Episcopal 
Church in the United States in Council assembled." 

If this were so, their action was binding upon the Church in Con- 



THE CIVIL ANALOGY. 223 

(c) The third parallel noted is that of j-epresentatioUy in 
considering which it is chiefly desired to point out the 

necticut. But this is manifestly untrue ; so, therefore, is the conclu- 
sion. But the argument and the evidence are alike inconclusive. 
For, (i) the canons were passed by the same body which had been 
already authorized by the Church in the States to ratify the consti- 
tution. It was for this reason that it was unnecessary to send the 
constitution back to the Church in the States for ratification, because 
the deputies were already, in advance, authorized to ratify ; and the 
constituent was under obligation to stand by the acts performed under 
such authority. (See resolution of 1786 — Bioren, p. 26 — and state- 
ment by Deputies in 1789 — lb. 48.) This is the precise distinction 
between the Convention of 1789 and previous conventions — that in 
1789 the deputies were authorized to bind their constituents, whereas 
what was done before rested on recommendation. Nor does the fact 
that in some States a further ratification took place by subsequent 
action, which might have been for special reasons in those cases 
desirable, prevent the conclusion necessarily contained in the evi- 
dence of General Convention itself. The power to adopt a general 
constitution respecting both doctrine and discipline was what the 
deputies in General Convention of 1789 had received. They cer- 
tainly might pass canons, by the power which they had to adopt a 
constitution, as the greater power includes the less ; but whenever 
under that power canons were adopted, they would bear relation to 
the constitution. 

(2) In fact, however, the business of the constitution was first 
entered upon, and that these canons were passed before the adoption 
of the constitution as a whole, was simply a matter of convenience, 
because they were reported by committee as ready for adoption 
before the process of amendment to the constitution was completed 
— though, even so, actually on the same day both were adopted in 
their complete state ; and those articles which related to the law- 
making power were adopted before the canons. 

The constitution was presented on the 1st day of August, twice 
read over, and seven of its nine articles were adopted, the remaining 
two being " postponed for the future consideration of this Conven- 
tion." (Bioren, p. 52.) Among the articles so adopted were those 
that stood in the designated numbering — as they have stood ever since 



2 24 ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. 

substantial correspondence between the provisions made 
in the two systems to attain the expression of the will of 

— as Articles II. and III. ; those, namely, which affect the question 
of legislative power ; and the resolution of adoption contains these 
(in this connection) very remarkable words in relation to the seven 
articles adopted : "that they be a rule of conduct for this 
Convention." The two articles laid over for further consideration 
were the eighth and ninth, having reference to the Book of Common 
Prayer and the mode of altering the constitution, neither of which 
had any bearing upon the question of the power of the Convention 
to enact canons under the constitution. (Bioren, p. 52, pp. 61, 62.) 

The Convention went into Committee of the Whole on canons after 
this date, and, as thus appears, under the authority of the constitu- 
tion as to this point adopted, on the 5th and 6th days of August ; 
and the report of this committee, laid on the table August 6th, was 
acted on, and the proposed canons adopted August 7th. (Bioren, 
pp. 53, 55, 57.) 

They are headed " Canons . . . agreed on and ratified in the 
General Convention . . . held . . . from the 28th day of 
July to the 8th day of August, 1789, inclusive." {lb. 58.) Immedi- 
ately after, on the same 7th day of August, the Convention consid- 
ered the two articles of the constitution which had been postponed, 
agreed to them as amended, and ordered the whole constitution 
engrossed for signing. {lb. 60.) And on the 8th day of August the 
constitution was accordingly read and signed. {lb. 61-64.) 

(3) After the amendment and republication of the constitution, 
October 2, 1789 (Bioren, pp. 75-78), these canons were reconsidered, 
and passed with sundry others. (Bishop White's " Memoirs," p. 30, 
p. 155.) And on the 16th day of October, having been collected into 
one body, and ratified by both Houses, they were directed to be 
entered in the Book of Records and printed with the Journal. 
(Bioren, p. 84.) 

So that, in fact, the obligation of these ten canons — which appear 
to have been a sort of prohibitory decalogue to Dr. Vinton's accept- 
ance of the proper relation of the legislative power of the Convention 
to the constitution — dates, so far as concerns certain churches not 
represented in the session of August, 1789, from the i6th day of 
October, or fourteen days after the adoption of the constitution by 



THE CIVIL ANALOGY. 225 

their respective constituent parts, though this considera- 
tion incidentally includes what should be properly re- 
garded as a fourth parallel, viz. : {^) that of legislation. 

In comparing the two systems in this aspect of them, 
the student will observe that the General Convention 
corresponds to the Congress both in respect to its scheme 
of representation and to its requirement of the consent 
necessary for legislation, wherein it is noticeable that the 
same idea, derived from the British Constitution into 
the States and thence extended to the United States 
Government, of a triple consent necessary to the estab- 
lishment of a law, is traceable in the General Convention, 
though not exactly in the same way. 

In order to legislation in Congress there is necessary 



them. And, so far as concerns the Churches which were represented 
in the session of August, 1789, the obligation dates from the 7th day 
of August, or six days after the Convention, composed of " deputies 
from the several States," authorized "to confirm and ratify a general 
constitution, respecting both the doctrine and discipline of the," etc., 
had resolved that the articles affecting the legislative powers of the 
Convention be adopted, and " that they be a rule of conduct for this 
Convention." 

The case of these ten canons, then, which Dr. Vinton, following 
Judge Hoffman (" Law of the Church," p. 105), though with much 
less caution than is shown by that learned jurist, alleges to prove the 
legislative power of the General Convention independently of the 
constitution, and by virtue of the authority of that body as being 
the whole Church in the United States in Council assembled, is so 
far from furnishing evidence in support of this claim that it most 
distinctly establishes the contrary ; viz. : that the deputies in the 
Convention, acting for the Church in those States which were repre- 
sented in it, exercised the legislative power under and by virtue of 
the constitution which their commission authorized them to adopt ; 
and which, when adopted, became their rule of action — being, what 
a constitution properly is, a law to the law-givers, 
15 



2 26 ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. 

the consent of a Lower and an Upper House and also of 
the President, who has the power of a negative, by which 
he may, under certain limitations, prevent a joint act of 
the two Houses from becoming a law. Now, we find in 
the ecclesiastical system an Upper and a Lower House — 
the House of Bishops and the House of Deputies — the 
Lower House being composed of a two-fold representa- 
tion of the Church in the dioceses by clerical and by lay 
deputies. And in order to the adoption of any law of 
this Convention, there is necessary the triple consent of 
the laity, the clergy, and the Bishops. 

It is noticeable in this connection that the intent of the 
Ecclesiastical Constitution, as it was before the modifica- 
tions with which it was finally adopted, was that the 
House of Bishops were to have no legislative powers, 
but were to act only as a House of Revision with a lim- 
ited power of negative,* which indicates that the Bishops 
were then contemplated as a sort of combined Executive. 
And this conception of the Episcopate as an Executive 
appears to have been not entirely obliterated even after 
the position of the Episcopal House had been changed 
in 1789 to that of a coordinate branch of the Legis- 
lature, with the same right to originate and propose acts 
as was recognized in the other House ; for even then the 
power of the Bishops, as expressed in the constitution, is 
the power of a negative on the acts of the other House, 
to which is given the power to overrule that negative. 
It was not until some years later that the two Houses 
were placed in the constitution on a substantially equal 
footing ; and even then a trace of the former conception 
remained in the condition imposed upon the Bishops, 



Journals Gen. Conv.," vol. i., pp. 61, 62 (Bioren). 



THE CIVIL ANALOGY. 227 

that their disapprobation or non-concurrence should be 
handed down within three days, with their reasons in 
writing, a trace which is still waiting to be removed. 
But whether viewed as a branch of the Legislature or as 
representing the Executive, the concurrence of their 
consent with that of the clergy and laity in the Lower 
House constitutes the triple cord of legislative obligation 
which is characteristic of the civil system, both English 
and American, with which the founders of the ecclesias- 
tical system were familiar. 

That as to this matter of an Executive there should 
be some apparent discrepancy in the working out of the 
general correspondence of the ecclesiastical with the 
civil system, is not strange. The position of the single 
Bishop in his diocese would naturally take care of itself; 
at any rate, there was no occasion for the promoters of 
the Ecclesiastical Union to embarrass themselves with 
questions about that. But in providing for the union, 
there were more questions than one which might here 
arise. The course actually taken was that when the 
Convention was contemplated as one House, provision 
was made that a Bishop should preside (Art. V., 1786) ; 
and when the Convention came to be contemplated as 
two Houses, the framers contented themselves with lodg- 
ing the negative in the Bishops collectively, leaving the 
question of presidency untouched. 

The need, however, of this distinction for other pur- 
poses than that of the negative became soon apparent ; 
and although no mention of a Presiding Bishop is made 
in the original constitution, yet in amended articles and 
subsequent canons that office is recognized ; though the 
origin of it belongs not to any law of the Convention, 
but to the action of the Bishops in their own House : at 



22,8 ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. 

the very first session of which, its members, mindful of the 
caution of the ApostoUc Canon that the Bishops of every 
nation should know him who is chief among them, desig- 
nated the Bishop of oldest consecration as the president.* 
There is another matter which must be taken into 
account as having a very direct and serious bearing, in 
point of principle, upon the parallels of representation 
and legislation. 

, It is often asserted without qualification — by some 
vaunted as a chief glory, by others decried as an evil 
disease of the body politic — that the American civil 
system, involving a popular government, involves also 
the supremacy of the will of the majority. Whether this 
be a glory or a disease— and that depends upon the un- 
derstanding and use of it — the fact is certain. The rule 
is the rule of the majority. But what majority ? 



* At the first session of the House of Bishops in October, 1789, 
there being then in the country Bishop Seabury, of Connecticut, 
consecrated in 1784, and Bishops White, of Pennsylvania, and Pro- 
vost, of New York, consecrated in 1787, the former two alone being 
present ; by the voluntary and very graceful concession of Bishop 
White the office was devolved upon Bishop Seabury on the principle 
of seniority of consecration. (White's " Memoirs," p. 148.) At the 
next session, Bishop Provost and Bishop Madison being also present, it 
was resolved that the presidency go by rotation, beginning from the 
north, whereby Bishop Provost presided. At the next session Bishop 
White presided in his turn. At the next session Bishop White pre- 
sided in place of Bishop Madison, who was not present. Bishop 
Seabury having deceased, the rule was restored to that of seniority, 
by virtue of which Bishop White presided up to the time of his 
death, in 1836. — Cf. Vinton, " Man. Com.," pp. 84-87. Cf. also 
Bishop White's very interesting account of the transfer of the presi- 
dency from Bishop Seabury (" Memoirs," pp. 162, 163), and the 
extract from Bishop Seabury's journal printed in Beardsley's life of 
him, pp. 424, 425. 



THE CIVIL ANALOGY, 229 

This is a question as to which neither the friends nor 
the enemies of the system are apt to give themselves 
much concern. Yet it is not only the important question 
in the controversy between them ; it is also the determin- 
ing question as to the true character of the system. 

The instinct of the churchman is apt to be conserva- 
tive, and the conservative instinct shrinks from the idea 
of the majority rule. But the most conservative reader 
of the stately page of Bishop Beveridge finds nothing to 
shock him in the affirmation, that when we seek for the 
judgment of the Universal Church we find it, not in the 
expression of each individual member of the Church, but 
in the testimony of the major part of those qualified to 
bear witness in regard to it. Nor can reason or common 
sense question the wisdom of the maxim of the civil law 
that what the greater part of the court determines is to 
be taken as the determination of the court. If we 
imagine a council of Bishops coming to the decision of a 
question before them, the fact that the voices of the 
greater number prevail suggests nothing unjust. And so 
with regard to the action of any body or community, 
there is necessarily nothing intrinsically wrong or unjust 
in the determination of it by the majority of the members 
of that body or community. Any question which m-ay 
rightly be subjected to the decision of any community 
may rightly be determined by the major part of that 
community. 

But it is manifest also that there may be many consid- 
erations which would lead in practice to the qualification 
and limitation of this right. The inherent selfishness of 
men obscures their natural sense of justice, while their 
weakness predisposes the multitude to flock together in 
masses, under the influence of those who know how to 



230 ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. 

touch the springs of their selfishness ; and hence the 
rights and interests of the minority, which is apt, as a 
rule, to include the better and wiser part of every com- 
munity, would be in great danger of being sacrificed, or 
at least impaired, if no provision were made for their 
protection. It is obvious, too, that this danger would be 
enhanced by the magnitude of the community ; and that 
in the smaller collections or groups of men there would 
be always both a better knowledge of the facts which 
concerned their well-being, and a better opportunity for 
the counsels of reason and wisdom to have their due 
weight and influence. And there is the further fact to 
be remembered, that in order to the attainment of the 
ends of justice, the interests of men are to be regarded 
as well as their persons ; and it is possible that the real 
welfare of a community may depend upon the conser- 
vation of certain interests which are not personally in 
charge of every member of the community, in equal 
shares, and in the disposition of which, therefore, a merely 
numerical majority of all the members of the community 
could not safely or wisely be trusted. 

We come thus to the thought that in a community 
widely extended and of diversified interests it is expedi- 
ent, as a matter of wisdom and just government, that its 
affairs should be ordered by some other majority than 
that which is merely numerical, and which should be 
able to represent and express the concurrent consent of 
certain constituent parts or interests in that community. 
It would thus be possible that while the numerical ma- 
jority of those who were concerned in any particular 
interest would direct the action and expression of those 
so concerned, yet the measure of the action and expres- 
sion of the whole community would be, not the voice of 



THE CIVIL ANALOGY. 231 

the numerical majority of all the individuals in that 
community, but the voice of the majority of the several 
constituencies or interests included in it ; whereby a just 
power and influence would be given to the numerical 
majority in the place and sphere which belonged to it, 
while the rights and interests of the minority would 
nevertheless be, as far as possible, protected from the 
tyranny and injustice of mere irresponsible and unthink- 
ing numbers. 

Perhaps the clearest illustration of the operation of a 
concurrent as distinguished from a merely numerical 
majority may be found in a simple confederacy. In 
the constituent parts of such a confederacy, representa- 
tives may be elected by numerical majorities in these 
parts respectively ; yet the voice of the representative 
body is the voice of the majority of those constituent 
parts, and so the voice of the whole. But in a confed- 
eracy which united a few populous constituencies with a 
larger number of less populous constituencies, it is obvi- 
ous that the voice of the whole jointly expressed in the 
representative body might be different from the will of 
the majority of individuals throughout all the constituent 
parts, who would, nevertheless, be bound by the concur- 
rence of the constituencies. And it is easy to see that 
the same principle might be applied in a more perfect 
union, wherein, however, as it would be necessary to 
entrust the common government with larger and more 
direct powers, it would be also probable that the pro- 
visions for the application of the principle would be 
more varied and complex, and would require a nicer 
adjustment and relation of the numerical and concurrent 
majorities to each other. 

It being understood, then, that the Republic of the 



232 ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. 

United States, involving a popular government, involves 
also the rule of the majority, it is to be said, in answer 
to the question as to the character of that majority, 
that it is not simply and absolutely the numerical ma- 
jority of the citizens of that Republic, but that such 
numerical majority is qualified and limited by the power 
of a concurrent majority of certain interests or constitu- 
encies which are represented in its government ; and 
that while there is room for the exercise of the just 
power and influence of the numerical majority in its 
proper place and sphere, yet that such provident care is 
had for the welfare of the numerical minority, as that 
the will of the numerical majority throughout the coun- 
try may be held in check by the will of the concurrent 
majority of its various constituencies, not necessarily 
identical with it. It is this characteristic which distin- 
guishes the Republic of the United States as much from 
a simply democratic or merely popular government as it 
is by this and other characteristics distinguished from a 
monarchy or an empire. 

In evidence and illustration of this characteristic 
might be adduced the provision of the United States 
Constitution in regard to the election of the President, 
which displays at least a very careful endeavor to bal- 
ance the claims of numerical and concurrent majorities, 
and which, as it withholds from the people, as a body, 
the right of election by a numerical majority, so also 
withholds from the States, in the first instance, the right 
of election by a majority of those constituencies, but 
provides for the choice by the people of each State of 
certain electors, by the vote of a numerical majority 
of the whole number of which electors the President 
is chosen ; or, failing such choice — that is, if no one 



THE CIVIL ANALOGY. 233 

receives a majority of such electoral votes — the three 
names which have received the largest number of elec- 
toral votes are submitted to the House of Representa- 
tives, by which the election of one of these three is made ; 
the vote in this case being taken by States, two-thirds of 
the States being required to be represented, each State 
having one vote, and a majority of all the States being 
necessary to a choice.* 

It will better accord, however, with the present pur- 
pose to note that in the legislative body the representa- 
tion consists not merely of two Houses, the concurrence 
of which is necessary in order to legislation, but that in 
the composition of these two Houses two different kinds 
of representation are included, the senators representing 
the States as such, and the members of the other House, 
though chosen for and within the States respectively, yet 
chosen with reference to the population of the State from 
which they come, and as representative of people within 
that State, so that — in practice at least — they represent 
particular popular constituencies within the State, instead 
of being chosen, as the senators are, by the legislative 
body representing the State as a whole. f A vote taken 



* United States Const., Art. II., Sec. i, and Art. XII. of the 
Amendments. 

f United States Constitution, Art. I., Sees, i, 2, 3. 

" The vSenate of the United States is composed of two senators 
from each State chosen by the legislature thereof, for six years, and 
each senator has one vote. 

" In this part of the Constitution we readily perceive the feature 
of the old confederation. Each State has its equal voice and equal 
weight in the Senate, without any regard to disparity of population, 
wealth, or dimensions. This arrangement must have been the result 
of that spirit of amity and mutual concession, which was rendered 
indispensable by the peculiarity of our political condition. It is 



234 ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. 

upon a question might express, in the case of the repre- 
sentation of any State, by the uniting of all its members, 
or by their conformity to instructions received from their 
constituency, the will of the State so represented ; and 
the combination of such expressions in a majority of 
States would result in the passage of a measure by such 
combination of States, which would not necessarily 
involve a numerical majority of all the citizens of the 
United States.* And, on the other hand, the members 



grounded on the idea of sovereignty in the States ; and every inde- 
pendent community, as we have already seen, is equal by the law of 
nations, and has a perfect right to dictate its own terms, before it 
enters into a social compact. On the principle of consolidation of 
the States, this organization would have been inadmissible, for in 
that case each State would have been merged in one single and entire 
government. At the time the Articles of Confederation were prepar- 
ing, it was attempted to allow the State an influence and power in 
Congress in a ratio to their numbers and wealth ; but the idea of 
separate and independent States was at that day so strongly cherished 
that the proposition met with no success." — i Kent's Commen- 
taries, p. 225. 

* Men have often debated the question of the right of constitu- 
encies to instruct their representatives. The right is not here referred 
to as derived from any provision of constitutional law, but rather as 
one of those which are necessarily involved in the relation between 
the two parties on the general principles of agency. Every principal 
has the right to instruct his agent ; and if the agent prefers his dis- 
cretion to his instructions, he has the power to do so, and he may be 
held responsible for the preference, or the principal may approve the 
act as justifiable under the circumstances. 

The constituency which has the right to elect constitutes the 
representative its agent — to represent and act for it ; and if he be 
instructed to act in a certain way, and prefers to act in another 
way, he takes the responsibility of using his own discretion, instead 
of that of those who constituted him. Circumstances may justify 
such departure from instruction ; but that cannot disprove the right 



THE CIVIL ANALOGY. 235 

representing the States might, in either or both Houses, 
so vote individually that their vote, uniting with that of 
tie representatives of States other than their own, would 
join in the expression of a popular will different from the 
popular will of their own State. The question of the 
probability of either of these courses being pursued is 
not so material as the question of its possibility ; and 
this being recognized, it is obvious that in the American 
civil system the will of the numerical majority is always 
capable of being held in check by the will of the concur- 
rent majority. 

The correspondence of the ecclesiastical with the 
civil system has already been noted in respect to the 
constitution of two Houses and their necessary con- 
currence in legislative acts, and also in respect to the 
triple concurrence involved in this joint action. It must 
now be added that the correspondence extends further 
than this, and indicates in the ecclesiastical system a 
very firm grasp of this principle of the concurrent ma- 
jority, and a very effective application of it in meeting 
the needs and obviating the difficulties involved in its 
formation. 

Several apparent dangers were to be guarded against 
in providing a common government for the members of 
the Church scattered through the various States of the 
Union — the irresponsible dominion of Bishops over 
clergy and laity ; the combination of Bishops and clergy 



to instruct, nor the right of censure upon disobedience. Neither can 
the fact that the personal membership of the electing constituency 
changes from time to time, destroy the identity of the constituency. 
The constituency, in the legal act of election under any settled and 
permanent system, has a continuous legal existence, irrespective of 
personal changes. 



236 ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. 

in a dominion over laity ; the dominion of the laity 
over the clergy ; the combination of a majority of 
Churches in some States over a minority in others — or, 
as we would now express it, the combination of a majority 
over a minority of Dioceses ; the dominion of a numerical 
majority of all members of the Church in the States over 
a minority of the same. These were all possibilities to 
be guarded against in the framing of a representative 
system of government ; and they were all anticipated, 
and as far as possible obviated, by an adherence to this 
principle of the concurrent majority. The Bishops can 
make no law without the concurrence of clergy and 
laity; the Bishops and clergy, no law without the con- 
currence of the laity ; the laity, no law without the 
concurrence of the Bishops and clergy. The constitu- 
tional majority of the House of Deputies on legislative 
questions (as distinguished from the majority required 
in order to alterations of the constitution) is not a ma- 
jority of Dioceses, but a majority of Dioceses represented 
by clergy, concurring with a majority of Dioceses repre- 
sented by laity — quite a different matter. And in case 
this concurrent majority should happen to be coincident 
with a majority of Dioceses (which is as likely not to 
be as to be), such majority may still be controlled by a 
majority of Bishops, including (in the Episcopal repre- 
sentation of the Dioceses) the whole of the opposing 
minority. And, finally, the constitutional majority is not 
a numerical majority of deputies representing a majority 
of all members of the Church as against the Bishops, but 
a majority of those who represent one set of interests in 
the Church concurring with a majority of those who 
represent another set of interests. All of which seems 
to show that the correspondencies of representation and 



THE CIVIL ANALOGY. 237 

legislation in the two systems were not the result of a 
mere superficial imitation on the part of the later of the 
two, but were the legitimate fruit of the clear compre- 
hension of a common principle in all its essential bear- 
ings ; and although analysis and not laudation is the 
purpose of these pages, yet they may be permitted to 
reproduce, what their author has before ventured to 
affirm, that in comprehensiveness of design and precision 
of expression the provisions of this Ecclesiastical Con- 
stitution on this subject may challenge comparison with 
any charter of any government of any kind ; and that 
for the wisdom and power evinced by Bishop White in 
the conception and formulation of the plan embodied 
in that Constitution, he deserves to be immortal in the 
annals of statesmanship.* 

(e) The parallel of the judiciary might be sufficiently 
disposed of with the remark that, as the framers of the 
Civil Constitution did not fully set forth their judicial 
system in that instrument, but left much to the delibera- 
tion of Congress in the future, so the framers of the 
Ecclesiastical Constitution did not find themselves in a 
position to establish a general ecclesiastical judiciary. 

It is worth while to observe, however, that the course 
which was pursued by the latter, in relegating to the 
State or Diocesan Conventions the prescribing of the 
mode of trial of clergymen, involves two things which 
bear directly upon the subject in hand : (i) The pointed 
omission either to devolve judicial functions upon the 
General Convention which they were establishing, or to 
recognize their existence in the conventions in the 
States ; and (2) the reservation of the legislative power 

* C/. " The System of Representation in General Convention," 
"Church Eclectic," October, 1880. 



238 ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. 

necessary to the lawful regulation of judicial functions 
to the Churches in the States. It was not until 1841 that 
the article of 1789, containing the provision to this effect, 
was put into its present shape, which shows a continued 
adherence to the same principles ; the legislative power 
of regulating judicial functions so far as related to 
Bishops being then lodged in the General Convention, 
by giving to it the authority of prescribing the ?jwde of 
trial in that case ; and the prescribing of the mode of trial 
of Presbyters and Deacons being left where it had been 
from the beginning, in the State or Diocesan Convention.* 

(/) The parallel of development is the last which need 
be noted in this connection, and, in treating of it, it is 
proposed to show, as briefly as may be possible — 

(t) The correspondence in regard to the original 
extent of jurisdiction in the two systems ; and 

(2) The correspondence in the general policy used in 
the two system.s in regard to the principles of the exten- 
sion of that jurisdiction. 

(i) The seventh article of the United States Constitu- 
tion is as follows : " The ratification of the conventions 
of nine States shall be sufficient for the establishment of 
this Constitution between the States so ratifying the 
same." 

It should hardly be necessary to offer an argument to 
show that jurisdiction, as contemplated by this Constitu- 
tion, did not extend to any State not so ratifying the 
same. Really the language admits of no other interpre- 
tation, whatever inferences may be drawn by one school 
or another as to the capacity of ratification to produce 
an insoluble fusion of the peoples of previously existing 



* Ecd. Const.. Art. 



THE CIVIL ANALOGY. 239 

political entities, which inferences raise an entirely dis- 
tinct question.* 



* " Although the Articles of Confederation required the consent of 
all the States for the least change in the Constitution, and the con- 
vention had only been authorized to consider a revision of these 
Articles, it had yet ventured, in its proposal for a radical reorganiza- 
tion of the Union, to adopt the provision that the new constitution 
should come into force as soon as it had been adopted by nine States. 
This did not involve any tyranny by a majority, because it was ex- 
pressly provided that the ratification was to be good only for the 
ratifying States. In case four States, or less than four, did not 
ratify, they thus, ipso facto, cut themselves out of the Union until 
they thought good to enter it, or the other States, perhaps by force 
of irresistible necessity, compelled them to do so. But such compul- 
sion certainly could have been tried with success only against the 
smaller States, and in that case, as we shall see later more closely, 
the whole fundamental law of the new federal power would have 
been shattered and racked in a terrible way." — von Holst, The 
Constitutional Law of the United States, p. 23. 

The very learned author, in accord with this lucid statement, stig- 
matizes, as evidence of the untrustworthiness of another author, the 
assertion that "the fundamental law, according to Article VII., was 
to come into force for all the States represented in the Convention at 
Philadelphia, when nine of them approved it " (p. 23, «.). He him- 
self, however, uses language which seems to imply exactly the same 
error, although it is difficult, in view of his foregoing statement, to 
think that the implication was intended : " March 4, 1789, the new 
federal powers came into existence, although North Carolina and 
Rhode Island had not yet adopted the Constitution. The legal posi- 
tion which these two States occupied in regard to the Union was not 
sharply insisted upon, because their delay could not be of any espe- 
cial importance, and no one doubted that they would soon overcome 
their scruples " (p. 26). 

It is possible, however, that this implication may have been an 
incidental result of the convictions of the writer in regard to the 
original unity of the people throughout the colonies. In his view, 
which it is needless to say is sustained with great power, the confed- 



240 ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. 

Nor, although this express statement is absent from 
the Ecclesiastical Constitution, can it be necessary to 
repeat, what has been already demonstrated, that juris- 
diction under it extended to such Churches in States as 
had adopted it, and to no others. 

But it is necessary to remember that in both systems 
it was presumed that this jurisdiction would be extended 
and not remain restricted to its original elements. 

Section 3 of the fourth article of the United States 
Constitution provides that " new States may be admitted 
by the Congress into this Union." And the fifth article 
of the Ecclesiastical Constitution of 1789 is as follows : 

*' A Protestant Episcopal Church in any of the United 
States, not now represented, may, at any time hereafter, 
be admitted, on acceding to this Constitution." 

The difference which appears upon the face of these 
provisions is, that the admission of a new State must be 
by Congress, which may withhold its consent ; whereas 



eration as between independent and sovereign States was in itself a 
revolution, and the combination of the States in Union was simply 
a return to the original unity. He holds the States never to have 
been, in any proper sense, sovereign, but to have recognized in each 
other a sovereignty by common consent, for the purpose of consti- 
tuting a Union which buried such common consent in a perpetual 
fusion. {Cf. pp. 3-32, 37-44-) 

It might be a matter of some interest to inquire on what ground 
the sovereignty of an independent State anywhere in the civilized 
world rests, other than that of the common consent of those making 
the same claim with itself ; but the inquiry is not to the present 
point ; for neither the origin of the sovereignty, nor the operation of 
the constitution upon those States by which it was ratified, affects 
the fact that the Constitution was of force upon such States only as 
had ratified, and not upon others until they did ratify ; as to which, 
notwithstanding his incidental implication on page 26, the other 
statements (p. 23) of the learned professor seem to leave no doubt. 



THE CIVIL ANALOGY. 241 

the admission of a new member into the Ecclesiastical 
Union is, upon its accession to the Constitution, without 
the express requirement of the consent of General Con- 
vention. From which some have inferred that the Gen- 
eral Convention has no voice in the admission of new 
members.* It would seem more consonant, however, to 
the civil analogy, to regard that provision as understood, 
if not expressed, and to suppose that the common au- 
thority of the Union should have been presumed to have 
the power of expressing that consent to the admission of 
a new member which it is the right of every association 
to give or withhold. But as the ecclesiastical framers 
left this to be matter of inference, and refrained from 
perfecting their civil analogy in this case, we may, per- 
haps, pass it by as one of the very few indications of 
that inequality of gait which is proverbially attributed to 
all analogies. 

There appears, nevertheless, a substantial correspond- 
ence in the two constitutions in regard to the recognition 
of the extent of jurisdiction, and in regard to the pur- 
pose that this jurisdiction should be further extended. 

(2) The correspondence in the general policy used in 
the two systems in regard to the principles of the exten- 
sion of that jurisdiction appears — 

{a) In the recognition of newly admitted members of 
either Union as standing in the same relation to the 
Union itself, and to the other constituent parts of the 
Union, as if it had been one of the original constituent 
parts ; and 

{h) In the exercise of jurisdiction by each over depend- 

* See an article of characteristic ability and brilliancy by the late 
Rev. Dr. J. H. Hopkins, on the question of the admission of Dako- 
ta, contributed to the " American Church Review," April, 1881. 
16 



242 ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. 

ent districts or groups of individual members not being, 
as such, constituent parts of the Union. 

(a) For the estabHshment of the first correspondence 
it is hardly necessary to do more than state the fact. 
Every State admitted into the Union becomes, by virtue 
of such admission, the equal in the political system of 
every unit in that system. Whether this be the result 
of a sort of fiction of law whereby that is reputed to 
be done which ought and is intended to be done, or 
the result of the accession of a previously independent 
sovereignty to an already existing association or union 
of sovereignties, the case is the same. The most ex- 
treme advocate of the sovereignty of the States, and the 
most extreme fusionist, appear to hold the same doc- 
trine on that point. 

And so far as the ecclesiastical system is concerned, 
there is no doubt as to the same doctrine in regard to 
the admission of Dioceses — Dioceses being legally and 
constitutionally the equivalent, under the existing system, 
of Churches within States in the system as originally 
founded, each Diocese having been originally conter- 
minous with the State.* Every Diocese that is admitted 
on acceding lo the Constitution, being the equal, in the 

* In the General Convention of 1838 an amendment to the Con- 
stitution was adopted, whereby the word Diocese was made to take 
the place of the word State. The amendment resulted from the 
division of the Diocese of New York, which had hitherto been the 
Church in the State of New York, into the Diocese of New York 
and the Diocese of Western New York. The question raised by this 
first instance of division was settled by the amendment which recog- 
nized the Diocese as the equivalent in the system of the Church 
within the State ; and incidentally sanctioned the converse of the 
proposition that the Church in the State was the diocesan unit in the 
system prior to the amendment. 



THE CIVIL ANALOGY. 243 

system of the Church Representative, of every other 
Diocese, has the same rights under the system as if it 
had been originally one of its constituent parts ; a state- 
ment which will hardly be denied either by those with 
whom the acceptance of the supremacy of General Con- 
vention does not involve the acknowledgment of its in- 
herent sovereignty, or by those who conceive of the Dio- 
ceses as existing only by permission of that body, and 
as enjoying an equality of no rights worth mentioning. 

{h) The second correspondence is somewhat more 
difficult to state and explain, but it is, upon observation, 
sufficiently exact. 

The civil system of the United States involves more 
than the federal union of distinct political parts. This 
federal union is the basis of the system ; but the system 
being founded, the community comes into political exist- 
ence — legally and constitutionally, as well as morally — 
by virtue of it ; and that community as a whole, repre- 
sented by its common government having direct and 
immediate jurisdiction within a certain sphere over the 
individual members of it, has certain common interests 
in which all its members are concerned, and of which 
the common government is the guardian and adminis- 
trator. 

In no respect is this more obvious than in regard to 
territory external to the limits of the constituent parts of 
the Union, whether that territory be regarded merely as 
property, or also as the place of residence of members of 
that community, coming originally from one of the States, 
but carrying with them the inherent privilege of member- 
ship in the community, and along with that the motive 
and expectation of having ultimately in that place of 
residence the advantage of the formation of the district 



244 ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. 

which contains it into a constituent part of the Union. 
The care of that territory, in either aspect or both as- 
pects of it, devolves of necessity upon the general govern- 
ment ; and in the exercise of that care it provides for and 
maintains territorial governments more or less assimi- 
lated to States in their political arrangement, but not pos- 
sessing — as in the nature of things they could not possess 
— the rights of States as constituent members of the 
Union. The executive and judicial officers of such ter- 
ritories are appointed by the general government ; and 
although they are incapable of representation in Con- 
gress in the proper and constitutional sense of the word, 
yet they are allowed by law a delegate who may speak 
for them in the House of Representatives, but who has 
no vote in that body.* 

In like manner in the ecclesiastical system, although 
the federation of Dioceses was from the beginning its 
essential characteristic, yet the Church — even as the 
Church Representative — is something more than a feder- 
ation. If the Ecclesiastical Union were desirable at 
all, it was desirable that it should be extended. If the 
grouping of Dioceses existing within the limits of the 
same civil government was in conformity with sound 
Church principle, it was in derogation of sound Church 
principle that any Diocese should, without the gravest 
reason touching the very life of the Church, hold itself 
aloof from that Union. And more than this, if there 
were scattering members of the Church in outlying dis- 
tricts which were not States, they could not consistently 
be left uncared for by the Church, any more than the 
districts themselves could be regarded as beyond the 

* Cf. von Hoist, " The Constitutional Law of the United States 
of America," pp. 175-184. 



THE CIVIL ANALOGY. 245 

pale of the protection of the civil authority. Hence it 
came to pass that in connection with the Ecclesiastical 
Union, as well as with the Civil Union, and for the same 
general reason, there should be developed a system of 
dependencies which was in the beginning formally out- 
side of the Union itself, but which in each case grew 
naturally out of the principles of the Union, although 
not entirely and specifically provided for by its Consti- 
tution. 

In short, as the single Diocese was, in the system, con- 
templated as the Church in the State, so the Ecclesiasti- 
cal Union was to be coextensive with the Civil Union ; 
and though many a year was to pass before the formu- 
lation of the canonical maxim (Digest, Tit, I., can. 19, 
sec. vi. [4J), that the jurisdiction of this Church extends in 
right, though not ahvays in form, to all persons belong- 
ing to it within the United States, yet no sooner was 
the formal organization complete in the majority of the 
States than the effort began to be made to reach out 
beyond the limits of these States. In the second regular 
General Convention (1792) it was resolved that a joint 
committee of both Houses be appointed to report a plan 
for supporting missionaries to preach the Gospel on the 
frontiers of the United States. And in 1808 a com- 
mittee was appointed to address the Church in certain 
districts, with a view : (i) to urge Churches represented 
in General Convention to send regularly a deputation ; 
(2) to invite the Church in every State in which it is 
organized, and which has not acceded to the Constitution, 
to accede to the same ; (3) to invite the clergy and some 
of the most respectable lay members in the States and 
Territories, in which the Church has not been organ- 
ized, to organize and accede to this Constitution. And 



^46 ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. 

this committee was authorized, moreover, to consider 
and determine on the proper mode of sending a Bishop 
into said States and Territories, and in case of a reason- 
able prospect of accomplishing this object, to elect a suit- 
able person to such Episcopacy, any three Bishops being 
authorized to consecrate such person on the proper cer- 
tificates ; provided, that the jurisdiction assigned to him 
should not interfere with the rights of any State or 
Diocese which should thereafter adopt the Constitution.* 
The purport of these resolutions, besides its bearing 
upon the nature of the ecclesiastical system, very plainly 
indicates the policy of the General Convention in the 
process of extending the jurisdiction of the Union, and 
particularly the care which was, in that policy, to be 
taken of the interests of the Church in the outlying dis- 
tricts of the Union. From this beginning has been devel- 
oped the whole of the missionary system, which, though 
a distinct system canonically grafted upon the system of 
the Church Representative, is yet in substance a depend- 
ence upon the community of the Ecclesiastical Union 
under the care of its general government. And although 
the later theory, induced by increasing earnestness in the 
fulfilment of missionary duty, has been that the whole 
Church is one great missionary society — which is per- 
fectly true, when rightly understood — yet care has been 
taken to preserve the proper relations and distinctions in 
the work of that society in connection with the common 
government of the community organized in Ecclesiastical 
Union ; the society, although actually of the same indi- 
vidual membership as the community, being neverthe- 
less, as such, the chartered creation of the common gov- 



■"" Bioren's "Journals of General Convention," p. 252. Cf. "The 
Church Cycloptedia," title, "General Convention." 



THE CIVIL ANALOGY. 247 

ernment of that community, and having its constitutior; 
canonically imposed upon it.* So that not only the be- 
ginning of the missionary movement, but also the main 
course of its development, have been based upon princi- 
ples entirely harmonious with principles of the Ecclesi- 
astical Union corresponding with those of the Civil Union. 
And this parallel of development may be fairly said to be 
evinced not only in respect of conformity in principle, 
but also in respect of similarity in particular provisions ; 
as may appear from the facts that the appointment of 
missionary Bishops, the rulers in the missionary depend- 
encies, is made by the general government of the 
Church, and that the Church in the missionary jurisdic- 
tions is not entitled to representation by deputies in the 
General Convention, but has the privilege allowed to it of 
the sending of a delegation with right of speaking but 
without the power to vote — as is the case of the terri- 
tories under the civil system. 

It must not be concealed, however, that in tracing this 
parallel of development, notwithstanding the general cor- 
respondence in principle, and the similarity in particular 
provisions, there appears one notable difference, and 
that is that the dependencies in the ecclesiastical system 
have a certain kind of representation in the general gov- 
ernment which they have not, and cannot have, under 
the civil system. This difference can hardly be said to 
preclude the parallel, because the nature of the represen- 
tation is different from that of the civil system, and 
comes, not from the fact of the Ecclesiastical Union, but 
from the fact of the larger federation involved in the 
constitution of the Apostolic office. Representation in 
the civil system depends entirely upon the choice of the 

* Digest, Title III., canon 7. 



248 ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. 

people, or election ; representation in the ecclesiastical 
system is, in its conformity to the civil system with 
which it is here brought into neighborhood, very largely 
— that is, in the case of clerical and lay deputies — in like 
manner dependent upon election. But there is, besides, 
the Episcopal representation, which is not dependent 
upon the election of Bishops as representatives, but upon 
their essential relation to their Episcopal jurisdictions. 

Whether the Bishops. are to be regarded as represent- 
ing their Dioceses in the House in which, under this 
ecclesiastical system, they have their seats, is a point 
disputed. If by a representative is meant one who is 
chosen expressly for representation, the Bishops are of 
course not representative. They are not specifically dele- 
gated or empowered to represent anything. Not their 
order, because they are themselves constituent parts of 
it ; not their Dioceses, because they are not chosen or 
appointed by their Dioceses for that purpose. But, in 
another sense, they certainly are representative both of 
their order and their Diocese. They represent their order 
in their concurrence or disagreement with the representa- 
tives of other orders in the other House. They represent 
their Dioceses in their concurrence or disagreement with 
those with whom they are in conference in their own 
House, and who are there with special knowledge of the 
needs and interests of their respective Dioceses, and with 
the capacity to speak and act with a view to their benefit. 
This kind of representation is intrinsically involved in 
their official relations. They cannot be divested, in their 
own deliberations, of the character of representation, 
each one of his own Diocese ; and the influence of any 
Bishop in the House, is the influence of his Diocese in 
that House. 



THE CIVIL ANALOGY. 249 

It follows from this principle, first, that where there 
are two or more Bishops in any Diocese (as in the case 
of Assistant Bishops, actually, and in the case of Bishops 
technically called suffragans, possibly), the balance of the 
Episcopal vote of the Dioceses in the Upper House is, in 
so far, impaired — some Dioceses having several Episcopal 
votes and others only one ; and, secondly, that where 
there are Bishops having charge of dependencies of the 
Church exterior to the Dioceses, the presence of those 
Bishops in the Upper House, having — in that capacity — 
equal rights with the Diocesan Bishops, impairs, in so far, 
the balance of the Episcopal vote in the legislative body 
with the vote of the other orders in the Lower House. 

With regard to the former of these two consequences, 
that is, the case of Assistant Bishops, it is perhaps within 
the letter of the Constitution. ^'The Bishop or Bishops 
in every Diocese shall be chosen agreeably to such rules 
as shall be fixed by the Convention of that Diocese," is 
the provision of the present Article 4, and the provision 
is found in all previous phases of the Constitution from 
its first draft in 1785 to the present time. Whether the 
original intention was to cover the possibility of Assistant 
Bishops, or the possible ultimate need of more Dioceses 
than one in a State, or merely the fact of the successive 
elections to the office which time and mortality must pro- 
duce, is not apparent. As a matter of historical fact, the 
first Assistant Bishop, Dr. Moore, of New York, conse- 
crated during the life of Bishop Provost, took his seat in 
the House of Bishops as a matter of course ; and all 
subsequent Assistant Bishops have done the same thing. 
It is also a matter of historical fact that there has been 
from about the same period a canonical prohibition of 
the consecration of suffragan Bishops, technically so 



250 ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. 

called.* And therefore the only thing that in fact has 
impaired, in this aspect, the balance of the representation 
in the two Houses has been the occasional possession on 
the part of some Dioceses of more than one Episcopal 
vote ; an arrangement which is obviously in each case 
not permanent, but transient and temporary. 

It is, however, with the latter of these two consequences 
that we are concerned in the present parallel ; and the 
bearing of it upon that parallel is obvious, and, so far as 
it goes, adverse to its perfection. 

For in all the dependencies of the American ecclesi- 
astical system — whether those of domestic missions, so 
called, that is, in American territories ; or those of for- 
eign missions, for the conversion of heathen ; or those of 
members of this Church residing or sojourning in foreign 
countries, being by canon placed under designated Epis- 
copal jurisdiction — while they have none of them a 
representative in the General Convention under the 



* A Suffragan Bishop, properly so called, is a Diocesan Bishop in 
a Province ; such Bishops being called to give their suffrages, or 
votes, in regard to matters to be considered in Synod or Council, in 
which original sense, the word suffragan is very suggestive of the 
federate character of such bodies. In its technical sense, as used 
in England and this country, the word refers to a Bishop constituted 
to act as a sort of deputy. This use of the term is derived from 
Statute of Parliament in the reign of Henry VIII., which provided 
for the constitution of Bishops in certain Sees, with a specified and 
limited local jurisdiction ; such suffragans being by their consecra- 
tion actually Bishops, but forbidden to exercise the power belonging 
to the office, except in the performance of certain functions. The 
office thus provided for in England, and prohibited by American 
canon, is really the same as that of the Chorepiscopus of ancient 
times — a Bishop, who acted in the outlying regions of the TtcxftoiHux, 
and performed such acts of assistance in the minor functions of his 
office as the Bishop of the See required. 



THE CIVIL ANALOGY. 2^1 

Ecclesiastical Constitution as constituent members of 
the Ecclesiastical Union, not being such constituent 
members, in which respect the parallel with the civil 
system holds, yet there is not actually a total want of 
representation, because the Bishops respectively charged 
with the care of these dependencies have a right, in that 
capacity, to speak and act for them in the House of 
Bishops. The domestic and foreign missionary Bishops 
representing their Episcopal jurisdictions in fact, and by 
the right to a seat in the House conferred upon them 
by canon * (not by the Constitution, wherein their exist- 
ence was not originally contemplated, and from the later 
amendments to which they derive no such right), and 
having the canonical right not only to represent their 
jurisdictions, but also to vote on all questions, do, in so 
far, present a discrepancy in the parallel of development ; 
for they show a policy different from that of the civil 
system in this respect, in development, though not in 
original constitution. 

To account for this it is to be remembered that there 
has been a very general persuasion in the minds of 
venerable Bishops and other learned men that the 
Bishops did not sit in the General Convention as in any 
respect representative of their Dioceses, but as Bishops 
in the Church of God. It would be natural, then, that 
the feeling should prevail, and find expression in canons, 
that all the Bishops, as well Missionary as Diocesan, 
should be entitled to seats in the House of Bishops on 
equal terms. 

Yet these canons — whether or not similar laws under 
the circumstances in the civil system would be decided 



Digest, Tit. T., can. ig, sec. vi. [7], sec. vii. [2]. 



252 ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. 

to be unconstitutional — are clearly an accretion upon the 
ecclesiastical system, as containing legislation not con- 
templated nor provided for in its Constitution. That the 
Bishops having charge of the dependencies should be 
received to speak for their own work and jurisdiction, 
would be quite in accordance with the principles of the 
ecclesiastical system ; but that they should be admitted 
to an equal vote, and, much beyond this, to an equal 
share in the legislative function of the Episcopal House, 
is not legitimately to be inferred from these principles. 
The right cannot be deduced from a Constitution which 
was designed to be the organic law of the association 
of Dioceses, or Churches within States, which were the 
component parts of the Ecclesiastical Union. It would 
seem justifiable only on the principle that, by virtue of a 
larger federation than that based upon this Constitution, 
the Bishops come together in council to determine upon 
the common interest of the people entrusted to their 
care ; and although this would be justifiable while the 
Bishops sit in council, yet it is quite different when they 
sit as members of one House of a body constituted to 
make laws for the whole number of its members. The 
powers of the Bishops as a council are one thing ; 
their powers as a branch of the supreme legislature are 
another thing, and are limited as to the mode of their 
exercise by that Constitution, to the observance of which 
they are, in this ecclesiastical system, under as much 
obligation as any of its members. And while it must be 
allowed that the extension of the Episcopal representa- 
tion by the admission of other than Diocesan Bishops to 
equal rights in the exercise of the function of legislation 
in this constitutional system involves, in so far, the im- 
perfection of the parallel of development in the civil 



THE CIVIL ANALOGY. 253 

analogy, as well as other inconveniences, yet it must be 
said that it involves also, in the same degree, a departure 
from the original principles of the Constitution of the 
Ecclesiastical Union.* 



* The question of the representative character of the Bishops sit- 
ting as a House of General Convention should not be complicated 
with the question of the necessary quorum, as has sometimes been 
done, arguing from a position taken by Bishop White (Hawks, 
"Constitution and Canons," Arts. 2 and 3). The two questions are 
quite distinct. 

In 1808, when the attendance on the House of Bishops, in fact, 
consisted only of Bishop White and Bishop Claggett, and when it 
had been anticipated that the latter would be prevented by indisposi- 
tion from being present, Bishop White records (" Memoirs," p. 192) 
that he was prepared to maintain that a single Bishop may consti- 
tute a House. This he rests on two grounds : (i) As being the most 
agreeable to the letter of the Constitution. (2) Because in the in- 
stance named there could otherwise have been nothing done. In 
respect to both reasons the venerable Bishop may well be conceded 
to be right, without touching the representative character of such 
Bishop or Bishops as may attend. The instance would only prove 
that there was but one Diocese then represented in the Episcopal 
House, and that the others had not, in the case supposed, the same 
benefit. 

What exactly may have been meant, however, by the plea that the 
sufficiency of one Bishop was the most agreeable to the letter of 
the Constitution, is not quite clear. The provision that when there 
should be three or more Bishops they should form a separate House 
(Art. III.), which seems to be the provision intended, might perhaps 
give reason for supposing that two out of three was the quorum con- 
templated by the Constitution, and Dr. Vinton argues to this effect 
(" Man. Com.," pp. 125-128). But it is difficult to see how, even 
under this very doubtful construction, a quorum of one would be most 
agreeable to the letter of the Constitution, unless on the ground that 
one was that number, under three, most near to two ; which could 
hardly have been intended. If, however, by the letter of the Con- 
stitution the Bishop meant the provisions of the Constitution, it 



254 ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. . 

On the whole, taking into consideration the antecedent 
history of the Church in this country, and the various 
parallels which have been in fact presented, it may justly 
be said, not only that the civil analogy in the repre- 
sentative system of this Church is plainly visible, but also 
that the system cannot thoroughly be understood without 
reference to that analogy ; and, further, it may be said 

might indeed be very fairly argued that, as the Constitution made no 
express requirement as to the Episcopal quorum, the matter was left 
to the Bishops, and, therefore, so long as the Episcopal House 
appeared in General Convention, the purpose of the Constitution 
was complied with, irrespective of the number present. The neces- 
sary interests of the Dioceses would be protected by the requirement 
of a representation of the Church in a majority of Dioceses by the 
clerical and lay deputies, which representation was in the beginning 
all that there was^ and which in the original conception constituted 
the General Convention, the House of Bishops being an afterthought, 
grafted into a system first formulated without that feature, the due 
effect and proportion of which was only by degrees understood. 
And, although it is manifest that the question in its actual bearings, 
when every Diocese has its Bishop, is very different from the same 
question when there were only three or four Bishops in the country, 
yet it may very properly be held that, in the absence of any provision 
on the subject in the Constitution, the Episcopal quorum is within 
the regulation of the Episcopal House itself. But, irrespective of 
the number in attendance, the representative character of such as do 
attend is bound up with the nature of their relations, and cannot be 
obliterated except by such a definition of representation as dwarfs it 
to the measure of elected delegation. 

Dr. Vinton, however, following Judge Hoffman, as is usual with 
him, and agreeing in this instance with Dr. Hawks, as is remarkably 
unusual, holds that the virtute officii principle excludes the idea of 
representation. The intelligent reader will, of course, judge for 
himself. Should he, however, concur with this view of these learned 
men, he will at the same time gratify the present writer by assent- 
ing to the removal of the very slight flaw in the perfection of his 
parallel of development. 



THE CIVIL ANALOGY. 255 

that the analogy affords a remarkable testimony to the 
substantial agreement between the ideas which underlie 
the system of Catholic Episcopacy and the system of 
national unity of independent States with which it has 
been here associated. 



256 ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY, 



PROPOSITION XXIII. 

The Church Representative, in the American system here 
considered, exists in Dioceses which are combined in a 
Federative Union involving unity of authority over the 
individual members of its component parts and depend- 



The Federal Union in this ecclesiastical system has 
been already explained, sufficiently, at least, for the 
understanding of the sense in which the term is used ; 
and it has been shown not only to be conformable to the 
civil analogy in its essential qualities and many remark- 
able particulars, but also to have its foundations deeply 
laid in the principles of the Apostolic office, and thus to 
be, in principle, conformable to the will of the Divine 
Founder. 

It is now important to consider somewhat more partic- 
ularly, and in conclusion, three principles which are essen- 
tial to the understanding of the system ; and which, 
although they have already been implied or expressly 
stated, it is necessary, for the sake of clearness, dis- 
tinctly to emphasize. 

(i) The component parts of this Federal Union or 
Church Representative are the Dioceses. 

It may be worth while to show here, for the satisfac- 
tion of those to whom this language may be unfamiliar, 
that it is not, as they may suppose, either new in itself 
or expressive of new ideas. The process of time and 
events has accustomed the Churchmen of the present 
day to a somewhat different terminology, which has led, 
as is often the case in other matters, to seriously differ- 



THE UNITY OF AUTHORITY. 257 

ent conceptions of the nature of the thing described. 
But, so far from being a fond thing now vainly invented, 
the idea that the Dioceses are the component parts of the 
system described has certainly the sanction of very ven- 
erable authority, and authority which is associated with 
the beginning of its organization. 

The interest manifested, in the very early days of the 
system, in the case of those members of the Church who 
dwelt in remote parts of tlie country, has already been 
noted. In the General Convention of 1814, Bishop 
White, then the Presiding Bishop, calls attention to the 
fact that in 181 1 it had been devolved upon him, in 
connection with Bishop Madison, of Virginia, " to devise 
means for supplying the congregations of this Church 
west of the Allegheny Mountains with the ministration 
and worship of the same, and for organizing the Church 
in the Western States." In consequence of this the Pres- 
ident had begun a correspondence with Bishop Madison, 
but all further progress was arrested by the decease of 
the said Right Reverend Brother. " This did not hinder 
the President from submitting to the Convention of this 
Church in Pennsylvania a proposal, which was complied 
with, designed so far to meet the desires of some mem- 
bers of this Church in the Western country, as that in 
the event of a settlement of a Bishop therein, the congre- 
gations in the western counties of the State might be 
under his superintendence ; on such a plan as would not 
affect the integrity of the Church, in the State of Penn- 
sylvania, as a component member of the body of this 
Church throughout our Union, in contrariety to the 
Constitution." 

What exactly was the nature of the plan proposed, the 
venerable President did not think it necessary to state ; 
17 



258 ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. 

but it is obvious, from his account of the course which 
he had pursued, that the Church in the State of Penn- 
sylvania was regarded as a component member of the 
body of this Church throughout the Union— that is, a 
component member of the Church conterminous with 
the Civil Union, or designed so to be ; and that a meas- 
ure which should affect the integrity of that component 
part would be contrary to the Ecclesiastical Constitution. 
In other words, the Church in the State as a whole had 
a relation to the Ecclesiastical Union under the Consti- 
tution which no superintendence of any other Bishop 
than the Bishop of this Church in that State should be 
allowed to affect.* 

The equivalence of the Diocese, in the existing system, 
to the Church in the State in the system as at first organ- 
ized has been noted, and enough has been said in regard 
to the historical evidence that the Church in the State is 
a component member or constituent part of what Bishop 
White calls the body of this Church throughout our 
Union — that is, the Church Representative organized 
under the Constitution. 

It is now to be noted that, according to the terms of 
this Constitution, the Dioceses are the only component 
parts recognized ; from which it will follow that the 
members of the Church in groups or districts not organ- 
ized into Dioceses, and acceding in such organization to 
the Constitution, are not component parts of the Church 
Representative under this system, but are dependencies 
upon it. 

The following citations are made from the existing 
Constitution, because in that the word Diocese is used. 



* Bioren's " Journals," pp. 311-312. 



THE UNITY OF AUTHORITY. 259 

The provisions, unless otherwise noted, are precisely the 
same in the Constitution of 1789, except that the Diocese 
is designated as the Church in the State. 

Article i. '' This Church, in a majority of the Dioceses 
which shall have adopted this Constitution, shall be repre- 
sented, before they shall proceed to business." 

Article 2. " The Church in each Diocese shall be en- 
titled to a representation. ... If the Convention of 
any Diocese should neglect or decline to appoint clerical 

. . or lay Deputies, or if any of those . 
appointed should neglect to attend, or be prevented 
. . . such Diocese shall nevertheless be considered 
as duly represented by such Deputy ... as may 
attend. And if through the neglect of the Convention 
of any of the Churches which shall have adopted or 
may hereafter adopt this Constitution, no Deputies, either 
lay or clerical, should attend at any General Convention, 
the Church in such Diocese shall nevertheless be bound 
by the acts of such Convention." 

Article 3. " The Bishops of this Church, when there 
shall be three, or more, shall, whenever General Conven- 
tions are held, form a separate House." 

Article 4. '' The Bishop or Bishops in every Diocese 
shall be chosen agreeably to such rules as shall be fixed 
by the Convention of that Diocese." 

Article 5. *' A Protestant Episcopal Church in any of 
the United States, or any Territory thereof, not now rep- 
resented, may, at any time hereafter, be admitted on 
acceding to this Constitution : and a new Diocese, to be 
formed from one or more existing Dioceses, may be 
admitted " — under certain restrictions. 

Here the possibility of a Church in a Territory, as well 
as in a State, being represented is recognized. This 



26o ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. 

clause was not in the Constitution of 1789, but was added 
in 1838, so as to cover cases where organization in the 
Church as a Diocese might, as in some cases has hap- 
pened, precede the civil organization necessary to con- 
stitute the district a State. But the possibility thus rec- 
ognized is that of a Church so organized as to be capable 
of acceding to the Constitution, and of admission and 
representation under it. 

Article 9. *' This Constitution shall be unalterable un- 
less in General Convention, by the Church, in a majority 
of the Dioceses which may have adopted the same." 

These citations demonstrate that the Diocese is, under 
the Constitution, the constituency or component part of 
the representative system. It is the Church in the 
Diocese which is represented in the House of Deputies ; 
and it is the Bishops of this Church so represented, who 
compose, under the Constitution, the House of Bishops. 

It is, furthermore, the Church in a majority of the Dio- 
ceses which may have adopted the Constitution, to which 
alone belongs the power of altering the Constitution. 
The power must be exercised in the General Convention 
and not otherwise, but it belongs to the Church in the 
Dioceses to make, in the use of that means, such altera- 
tion ; and there is no other power by which constitution- 
ally it can be effected. The Bishops, clergy, and laity, 
acting in General Convention, or out of it, are not, as 
such, competent to this alteration : because, whether act- 
ing en rnasse^ by the numerical majority of their whole 
number ; or by the concurrence of the two Houses under 
the provision for legislation contained in Article 2, nei- 
ther action would necessarily involve the consent of the 
Church in a majority of the Dioceses. Without the con- 
sent, in General Convention, of the Church in a majority 



THE UNITY OF AUTHORITY. 26 1 

of the Dioceses which may have adopted the Constitu- 
tion, that Constitution cannot constitutionally be altered. 
And if it be urged that this conclusion would require 
also the (Consent of the Bishops of those Dioceses which 
constitute the majority in the action taken in the Lower 
House, that does not prove the conclusion to be wrong. 
When the Constitution containing this article, the same 
as now, was adopted in October, 1789, it was signed not 
only by the representatives of the Dioceses in the Lower 
House, but also by two out of the three Bishops then in 
the country. Whence arose the presumption that the 
Bishops of the Dioceses had no voice, as such, in the con- 
sent of those Dioceses to the alteration of the Constitu- 
tion ? Certainly there is no reason why the Bishops 
should not have a voice in the action of their Dioceses in 
General Convention, when the action called for is, as in 
this case, distinctly Diocesan action. That such action 
was not expressly required in concurrence with the 
action of elected representatives, is probably due only to 
the fact that the scheme of the Constitution was com- 
pleted in the conception of a representative body of 
clergy and laity, without strict regard to, or understand- 
ing of, the proper functions of Bishops, and that their 
connection with the system of the General Convention 
was not yet fully worked out. But as several miscon- 
ceptions in this respect have been removed in the lapse 
of time, there is no reason why in due time this should 
not be removed also ; in which event the provision of 
the Constitution as to its own alteration will be strictly 
carried out ; instead of being, practically and in effect, 
accomplished by the concurrence of the majority of the 
House of Bishops with the majority of the Dioceses as 
represented in the Lower House. 



262 ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. 

The Church existing in the missionary jurisdictions 
does not exist in the form of Dioceses as that term is 
used and understood in the Constitution. It is not 
organized in Convention with a Bishop of its own choice. 
It has not acceded to the Constitution. It is not consti- 
tutionally entitled to representation, and is in no respect 
a properly component part of the Church Representative, 
but is simply a dependency of that Church ; a nursery, 
so to speak, for the training and development of future 
constituent members. That it has, in any respect, a 
representation in the supreme legislature of the common 
government, has been shown to be traceable not to the 
Constitution, but to canonical provisions of the General 
Convention out of harmony with that Constitution, and 
resulting either from want of attention to the essential 
distinction between legislative acts and the organic law 
by which the legislature itself is bound ; or from that 
persuasion entertained by many of the representatives 
of the Church, that the General Convention is the 
Church itself, and as such has at least as much power as 
the Parliament of Great Britain, whose only limit is the 
transmutation of sex. Such representation is at any 
rate an anomaly— one of those exceptional features 
which may be found in almost every system of govern- 
ment, and which are generally traceable to the opera- 
tion of some special interest or influence, but which are 
none the less exceptions and anomalies not to be taken 
into account in ascertaining the true character of the 
system upon which it is an accretion. 

(2) The union of these component parts constituting 
the Church Representative in this system is, in its associ- 
ation, a distinct being — a proper moral entity, capable of 
recognition, distinction, and operation. 



THE UNITY OF AUTHORITY. 263 

As has already been observed, the federal union of 
Dioceses is essentially characteristic of this system, and 
yet it is more than a federation. The union is the basis 
and origin of the system, but by virtue of it the commu- 
nity comes into existence ; so that there is a distinct 
being constituted — legally, socially, politically a distinct 
creation. Nothing seems better to describe it than the 
term moral entity. It is capable of recognition by its 
essential and constitutional characteristics. It is capable 
of distinction, being a different thing from the Church 
existing under any other form of representative being, 
and as such is capable of name and attributes. It is 
properly the Church Representative formed by the Ec- 
clesiastical Union of the Church Catholic and Visible in 
the Dioceses which are its integral parts. It may be 
designated by any name which in its corporate action it 
may bestow upon itself. It is, in fact, called the Protest- 
ant Episcopal Church, and this Church for brevity. 
Whatever it may be convenient to call it, it exists in this 
or that Diocese, not as a substitute for the Catholic 
Church of Christ's foundation and Apostolic organiza- 
tion, but as the mode or means by which that Church 
operates in the state or condition of association. As so 
existing, it has properly a constitution, or organic law, by 
which it operates, and "in contrariety" to which it has 
no lawful power. 

It has been much disputed whether this Constitution 
is the Constitution of the Church or the Constitution of 
General Convention. Properly speaking, it is neither. 
The dispute would settle itself if it could be understood 
that the Church in the Dioceses has an existence or being 
as associated. The Constitution is the Constitution of 
the Church so associated, the Constitution of the asso- 



264 ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. 

elation or the community which comes politically into 
existence by virtue of the union ; and, as such, this Con- 
stitution regulates the powers of its supreme legislature, 
the General Convention, and constrains, limits, and 
obliges the Church in the Dioceses which have acceded 
to it. It is the organic law of the association, by which 
both the law-making power of the body, and its com- 
ponent parts, are bound. 

(3) The common government of this association has 
direct and immediate authority over the individual mem- 
bers of its component parts and dependencies. 

This authority results from those provisions of the 
Constitution whereby the acts of the General Convention, 
constitutionally performed, are made obligatory upon the 
Church in each Diocese, whether the consent of such 
Church has in any particular instance been given or not 
(Art. 2) ; and whereby such acts so performed are de- 
clared to have the operation of law (Art. 3). 

In the exercise of this authority the General Conven- 
tion acts, of course, under the limitations imposed by the 
Constitution ; and although its powers, as we have seen, 
are not specifically and in detail enumerated in that 
instrument, yet it is plain from its provisions that the 
General Convention is endowed with a supremacy of 
legislative power, subject to such limitations as are by 
the common consent of the constituent parts of the 
associated body incorporated into its Constitution. 
Under these limitations the General Convention appears 
to possess power to pass laws on any subject as to which 
a National Church is free to legislate for its members. 
It can pass any law which the Dioceses together or 
separately might pass for themselves, supposing them to 
be able to act together or separately. They do, indeed, 



THE UNITY OF AUTHORITY. 265 

act together in all acts which the General Convention 
performs, under the Constitution and not contrary to the 
limitations which that instrument imposes. It acts for 
them ; they act through it. When such action takes 
place, it is of superior obligation to the act of the Church 
in any Diocese. In respect to matters as to which there 
has been no such common action — that is, no action 
covered by the common consent of the Dioceses to the 
Constitution, or by constitutional legislation — the indi- 
vidual Diocese is free to act for itself in its own concerns. 
And what one Diocese may do for itself, two or more 
Dioceses may do for themselves, in regard to matters of 
joint interest, subject always to the paramount authority 
of the General Convention, acting, as before said, under 
the Constitution and within constitutional limits. The 
ability to pass laws obligatory upon all the Dioceses, and 
irrespective of the consent of individual Dioceses, result- 
ing from the assent of all the Dioceses to the Constitu- 
tion, is a check upon the power of individual Dioceses. 
The safety of the individual Diocese from overbearing 
action on the part of the General Convention lies in the 
principles of limitation embodied in the Constitution and 
in the moral force of a properly educated public opinion 
in the Church.* To say that these principles are not 
liable to be misapplied or perverted, or that there is no 
possibility of conflict of jurisdictions and confusion of 
obligations, or of misunderstanding and abuses, would 
be to say not only that the system was more than human, 
but also that it was more than divine. There is nothing 
that God or man has devised or created for human 
benefit that the heedlessness, the malice, or the stupidity 



* Cf. "Church Cyclopaedia," title General Convention. 



266 ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. 

of man cannot mar. But, all things considered, the 
system furnishes as solid a bulwark against the over- 
flowing tide of these human' tendencies as can well be 
conceived. 

And, although it might savor too much of a truly- 
American humility to say that it is better than any sys- 
tem which has ever thus far been conceived, yet it may 
justly be affirmed that what it needs for its own improve- 
ment is simply the right understanding and honest de- 
velopment of those elements of sound principle which 
it contains within itself, which it has derived from the 
providential influence upon it of entirely distinct and 
apparently opposing ideas, and in the use of which it has 
already done laudable service in the fulfilment of its 
most noble mission to harmonize the claims of the au- 
thority of the Church with the rights of constitutional 
liberty. 

The possession of this direct and immediate power of 
the common government of a federal union over the 
individual members of its constituent parts is that which 
properly distinguishes such association from a mere con- 
federation or league, in which the common government 
acts directly and immediately only upon the members of 
the league or federation, and indirectly and mediately 
through them upon the individuals comprised within 
them. 

There is no more central thought than this in the 
understanding either of this ecclesiastical system or of 
the civil system within which it is established ; and the 
due appreciation of it makes clear the relation of the 
constituent parts to each other, and to the common gov- 
ernment, and relieves the system from any just imputa- 
tion of weakness or inherent tendency to disintegration. 



THE UN-IT Y OF AUTHORITY. 267 

Authority without limitation or restraint is despotism ; 
unrestrained liberty to obstruct and reject authority is 
anarchy. But supreme authority over the individual 
members of a community, exercised under the restraints 
and limitations imposed by a Constitution, unalterable at 
the will of the governing body, and only upon the con- 
sent of those component parts of the community by 
which it has been established, is a possession which 
endows the system which is so happy as to enjoy it, 
with qualities at once the most efficacious and lasting, 
and the most endearing to the patriotic heart. 

And as, by the singular care and blessing of Almighty 
God, this beneficent characteristic is shared alike by the 
ecclesiastical system which we have been considering 
and by the civil system to which it is so near akin, it is 
neither unnatural nor unbecoming that each should be, 
to those who share the benefits of both, the object of a 
loyal and reverent regard. 



APPENDIX A. 

ABSTRACT FROM PUFFENDORF'S ESSAY REFERRED TO UNDER 
PROPOSITION I. 

Entities, according- to this author, are either Natural or 
Moral. 

Natural Entities are beings created, which have certain 
natural or inherent qualities, and operate (i) without reflec- 
tion, e.g., plants ; (2) with imperfect reflection, e.g., brutes ; 
(3) by peculiar light of understanding, e.g., man. 

Moral Entities are beings, or states of being, imposed after 
creation by superior understanding, chiefly for the regulation 
of the human will ; originally by God, in part also by man. 
These are (I.) framed with analogy to substance, and called 
moral persons ; or (II.) really and formally modes. 

I. Moral Persons are (i) simple or (2) compound. 

1, Simple moral persons are {A) public or {B) private. 

{A) Public are {a) civil, e.g., governor ; or {b) ecclesiastical, 
e.g., bishop. 

iB) Private, according to position, e.g., merchant, mechanic, 
etc. 

2. Compound moral persons, where several individuals are 
so united as to have one will, are {A) public or {^B) private. 

{A) Public are either {a) civil or {b) sacred. 

(«) Civil are either general, e.g., states or kingdoms; or 
peculiar, e.g., parliaments. 

{b) Sacred are also either general, e.g., Church Catholic, or 
particular churches ; or peculiar, e.g., synods or councils. 

{B) Private, e.g., colleges, corporate bodies which are per- 
sons in the eye of the law, and are civil or sacred, according 
to their object. 



270 APPENDIX A. 

II. Moral Entities, which are really and formally modes, are 
(i) either modes of estimation, as a person or thing is rated 
or valued, called also quantities ; or (2) modes of affection, 
as one is affected in such and such a way, called also 
qualities. 

Modes of affection are (i) formal, called also attributes, <?.^., 
a title ; (2) operative, qualities which work tending to pro- 
duce certain effects. 

2. Operative are those of (^) power, {B) right, (C) obliga- 
tion. 

{A) Power, ability to act with a moral effect over {a) our- 
selves — liberty ; {b) our own things — property ; {c) persons of 
others — empire or command ; {d) things of others, e.g., 
hiring. 

{E) Right, moral quality by which we justly obtain govern- 
ment or possession, being either {a) active, as by virtue of it 
we acquire from others ; or [p) passive, as we may lawfully 
receive from others — involving {a) no obligation to bestow, 
e.g., a gift ; {(S) moral obligation to bestow, called right of 
desert ; {y) right to exact. 

(C) Obligation, by which a man is placed under a moral 
necessity to perform anything. 



APPENDIX B. 271 



APPENDIX B. 

FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES AND DRAFT CONSTITUTION OF 

1785. 

Extract fro77t Bishop Whites Statement prefixed to Biorens 
Reprint of General Convention Journal's, 

" In pursuance of preceding- correspondence, there assem- 
bled some of the Clergy of New York, of New Jersey, and 
of Pennsylvania, in the city of New Brunswick, New Jersey, in 
May, 1784 : And there being a few respectable Lay members 
of the Church attending on public business in the same city, 
their presence was desired. The immediate object of the 
meeting, was the revival of a charitable corporation, which 
had existed before the Revolution ; clothed with corporate 
powers, under the government of each of the said three Prov- 
inces. The opportunity was improved by the Clergy from 
Pennsylvania, of communicating certain measures recently 
adopted in that State, tending to the organizing of the Church 
throughout the Union. The result was, the inviting of a more 
general meeting in the ensuing October, at the City of New 
York : that being the time and place, wherein, according to 
the charter of the above mentioned corporation, their next 
meeting should be held. It was accordingly held, for the 
revival of the corporation : And there appeared Deputies, not 
only from the said three States, but also from others ; with the 
view of consulting on the existing exigency of the Church. The 
greater number of these Deputies, were not vested with powers 
for the binding of their constituents : And therefore, although 
they called themselves a Convention, in the lax sense in which 
the word had been before used, yet they were not an organ- 
ized body. They did not consider themselves as such : And 
their only act, was the issuing of a recommendation to the 
Churches in the several States, to unite under a few articles 
to be considered as fundamental, These are the articles 



272 APPENDIX B. 

referred to, but not printed in the first Journal ; and . . . 
are as follow : 

"I. That there shall be a general convention of the Episco- 
pal Church in the United States of America, 

" 2. That the Episcopal Church in each state, send deputies 
to the convention, consisting of clergy and laity. 

" 3. That associated congregations, in two or more states, 
may send deputies jointly. 

" 4. That the said Church shall maintain the doctrines of the 
Gospel, as now held by the Church of England ; and shall 
adhere to the liturgy of the said church, as far as shall be 
consistent with the American revolution, and the constitutions 
of the respective states. 

"5. That in every state, where there shall be a Bishop duly 
consecrated and settled, he shall be considered as a member 
of the convention ex officio. 

" 6. That the clergy and laity, assembled in convention, shall 
deliberate in one body, but shall vote separately : and the 
concurrence of both shall be necessary to give validity to 
every measure. 

" 7. That the first meeting of the convention shall be at 
Philadelphia, the Tuesday before the feast of St. Michael next ; 
to which it is hoped and earnestly desired, that the Episcopal 
Churches in the respective states will send their clerical and 
lay deputies ; duly instructed and authorized to proceed on 
the necessary business, herein proposed for their delibera- 
tion." — Preface to Bioren's " Journals." 

Extract from Journal of ly 8s {Bior en, p. 8), Tuesday, 4th of 
October. 

" A General Ecclesiastical Constitution of the Protestant 
Episcopal Church in the United States of America. 

" Whereas, in the course of Divine Providence, the Protest- 
ant Episcopal Church in the United States of America is 
become independent of all foreign authority, civil and ecclesi- 
astical : 



APPENDIX B. 273 

" And whereas, at a meeting- of Clerical and Lay Deputies 
of the said Church in sundry of the said states, viz. in the 
states of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, 
New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Maryland, held in 
the City of New York, on the 6th and 7th days of October, 
in the year of our Lord 1784, it was recommended to this 
Church in the said states represented as aforesaid, and pro- 
posed to this Church in the states not represented, that they 
should send Deputies to a Convention to be held in the city of 
Philadelphia on the Tuesday before the feast of St. Michael 
in this present year, in order to unite in a Constitution of 
Ecclesiastical government, agreeably to certain fundamental 
principles, expressed in the said recommendation and pro- 
posal : 

" And whereas, in consequence of the said recommendation 
and proposal. Clerical and Lay Deputies have been duly 
appointed from the said Church in the states of New York, 
New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, 
and South Carolina : 

"The said Deputies being now assembled, and taking into 
consideration the importance of maintaining uniformity in 
doctrine, discipline and worship in the said Church, do hereby 
determine and declare, 

" L That there shall be a General Convention of the Protest- 
ant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, 
which shall be held in the City of Philadelphia on the third 
Tuesday in June, in the year of our Lord 1786, and for ever 
after once in three years, on the third Tuesday of June, in 
such place as shall be determined by the Convention ; and 
special meetings may be held at such other times and in such 
place as shall be hereafter provided for ; and this Church, in 
a majority of the states aforesaid, shall be represented before 
they shall proceed to business; except that the representation of 
this Church from two states shall be sufficient to adjourn ; and 
in all business of the Convention freedom of debate shall be 
allowed. 

" IL There shall be a representation of both Clergy and 
18 



274 APPENDIX B. 

Laity of the Church in each state, which shall consist of one or 
more Deputies, not exceeding four, of each order ; and in all 
questions, the said Church in each state shall have one vote ; 
and a majority of suffrages shall be conclusive. 

" III. In the said Church in every state represented in this 
Convention, there shall be a Convention consisting of the 
Clergy and Lay Deputies of the congregation. 

" IV. ' The Book of Common Prayer, and Administration of 
the Sacraments, and other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church, 
according to the use of the Church of England,' shall be con- 
tinued to be used by this Church, as the same is altered by 
this Convention, in a certain instrument of writing passed by 
their authority, entituled ' Alterations of the Liturgy of the 
Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, 
in order to render the same conformable to the American 
Revolution and the constitutions of the respective states.' 

" V. In every state where there shall be a Bishop duly 
consecrated and settled, and who shall have acceded to the 
articles of this General Ecclesiastical Constitution, he shall be 
considered as a member of the Convention ex officio. 

" VI. The Bishop or Bishops in every state shall be chosen 
agreeably to such rules as shall be fixed by the respective 
conventions ; and every Bishop of this Church shall confine 
the exercise of his Episcopal office to his proper jurisdiction ; 
unless requested to ordain or confirm by any Church destitute 
of a Bishop. 

"VII. A Protestant Episcopal Church in any of the United 
States not now represented, may at any time hereafter be 
admitted, on acceding to the articles of this union. 

"VIII. Every Clergyman, whether Bishop, or Presbyter, or 
Deacon, shall be amenable to the authority of the Convention 
in the state to which he belongs, so far as relates to suspen- 
sion or removal from office ; and the Convention in each state 
shall institute rules for their conduct, and an equitable mode 
of trial. 

" IX. And whereas it is represented to this Convention to 
be the desire of the Protestant Episcopal Church in these 



APPENDIX B. 275 

states, that there may be further alterations of the Liturgy 
than such as are made necessary by the American revolu- 
tion ; therefore the ' Book of Common Prayer, and Adminis- 
tration of the Sacraments, and other Rites and Ceremonies of 
the Church, according to the use of the Church of England,' 
as altered by an instrument of writing, passed under the 
authority of this Convention, entituled 'Alterations in the Book 
of Common Prayer, and Administration of the Sacraments 
and other rites and Ceremonies of the Church, according to 
the use of the Church of England, proposed and recommended 
to the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of 
America,' shall be used in this Church, when the same shall 
have been ratified by the Conventions which have respectively 
sent Deputies to this General Convention. 

" X. No person shall be ordained or permitted to officiate as 
a Minister in this Church, until he shall have subscribed the 
following declaration : ' I do believe the Holy Scriptures of 
the Old and New Testament to be the Word of God, and to 
contain all things necessary to salvation ; and I do solemnly 
engage to conform to the doctrines and worship of the Prot- 
estant Episcopal Church, as settled and determined in the 
Book of Common Prayer, and Administration of the Sacra- 
ments, set forth by the General Convention of the Protestant 
Episcopal Churck in these United States.' 

" XL This General Ecclesiastical Constitution, when ratified 
by the Church in the different states, shall be considered as 
fundamental ; and shall be unalterable by the Convention of 
the Church in any state." 



276 APPENDIX a 



APPENDIX C. 

THE SECOND OR AMENDED DRAFT CONSTITUTION, 1 786. 
(BIOREN, PP. 23-26.) 

" A General Constitution of the Protestant Episcopal Church 
in the United States of America. 

" Whereas, in the course of divine Providence, the Prot- 
estant Episcopal Church in the United States of America is 
become independent of all foreign authority, civil and ecclesi- 
astical : 

"And whereas, at a meeting of clerical and lay Deputies of 
the said Church in sundry of the said States, viz. in the states 
of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut,* New York, 
New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware and Maryland, held in the 
city of New York on the 6th and 7th days of October, in the 
year of our Lord 1784, it was recommended to this Church in 
the said States represented as aforesaid, and proposed to this 
Church in the States not represented, that they should send 
Deputies to a Convention to be held in the city of Philadelphia 
on the Tuesday before the feast of St. Michael in the year of 
our Lord, 1785, in order to unite in a constitution of Ecclesi- 



* " It is proper to remark, that although a clergyman appeared at 
this meeting, on the part of the Church in Connecticut, it is not to 
be thought, that there was an obligation on any in the state to sup- 
port the above principles ; because Mr. Marshall " [the clergyman 
indicated] " read to the assembly a paper, which expressed his being 
only empowered to announce, that the Clergy of Connecticut had taken 
measures for the obtaining of an Episcopate ; that until their design 
in that particular should be accomplished, they could do nothing ; 
but that as soon as they should have succeeded, they would come 
forward with their bishop, for the doing of what the general inter- 
ests of the Church might require." — Bishop White's Memoirs, 
p. 81. 



APPENDIX C. 277 

astical Government agreeably to certain fundamental princi- 
ples, expressed in the said recommendation and proposal. 

" And whereas, in consequence of the said recommendation 
and proposal, Clerical and Lay Deputies have been duly ap- 
pointed from the said Church in the states of New York, 
New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia and 
South Carolina : The said Deputies being now assembled, 
and taking into consideration the importance of maintaining 
uniformity in doctrine, discipline, and worship in the said 
Church, do hereby determine and declare ; 

" I. That there shall be a general Convention of the Protest- 
ant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, which 
shall be held in the city of Philadelphia on the third Tuesday 
in June, in the year of our Lord 1786, and forever after once 
in three years on the fourth Tuesday of July, in such place as 
shall be determined by the Convention ; and special meetings 
may be held at such other times, and in such place, as shall 
be hereafter provided for ; and this Church, in a majority of 
the states aforesaid, shall be represented before they shall 
proceed to business ; except that the representation of this 
Church from two states shall be sufficient to adjourn ; and in 
all business of the Convention, freedom of debate shall be 
allov/ed. 

" IL There shall be a representation of both Clergy and 
Laity of the Church in each state, which shall consist of one or 
more deputies, not exceeding four, of each order, chosen by 
the Convention of each state ; and in all questions, the said 
Church in each state shall have but one vote ; and a majority 
of suffrages shall be conclusive. 

" III. In the said Church in every state represented in this 
Convention, there shall be a convention consisting of the 
Clergy and Lay Deputies of the congregations. 

"IV. 'The Book of Common Prayer, and Administration 
of the Sacraments, and Rites and Ceremonies of the Church, 
according to the use of the Church of England,' shall be con- 
tinued to be used by this Church, as the same is altered by 
this Convention, in a certain instrument of writing passed 



278 APPENDIX C. 

by their authority, entituled ' Alterations of the Liturgy of the 
Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, 
in order to render the same conformable to the American 
revolution and the constitutions of the respective states.' 

"V. In every state where there shall be a Bishop duly con- 
secrated and settled, and who shall have acceded to the articles 
of this Ecclesiastical constitution, he shall be considered as a 
member of the General Convention ex officio ; and a Bishop 
shall always preside in the General Convention, if any of the 
episcopal order be present. 

" VI. The Bishop or Bishops in every state, shall be chosen 
agreeably to such rules as shall be fixed by the convention of 
that state : and every Bishop of this Church shall confine the 
exercise of his episcopal office to his proper jurisdiction : 
unless requested to ordain or confirm, or perform any other 
act of the episcopal office, by any church destitute of a Bishop. 

" VIL A Protestant Episcopal Church, in any of the United 
States not now represented, may at any time hereafter be 
admitted, on acceding to the articles of this union. 

" VIII. Every Clergyman, whether Bishop or Presbyter, or 
Deacon, shall be amenable to the authority of the Convention 
in the state to which he belongs, so far as relates to suspension 
or removal from office ; and the Convention in each state 
shall institute rules for their conduct, and an equitable mode 
of trial. And at every trial of a Bishop, there shall be one or 
more of the episcopal order present ; and none but a Bishop 
shall pronounce sentence of deposition or degradation from 
the ministry on any Clergyman, whether Bishop, or Presbyter, 
or Deacon. 

" IX. And whereas it is represented to this Convention, to 
be the general desire of the Protestant Episcopal Church in 
these states, that there may be further alterations of the Liturgy 
than such as are made necessary by the American revolution ; 
therefore ' The Book of Common Prayer and Administration 
of the Sacraments, and other rites and ceremonies, as revised 
and proposed to the use of the Protestant Episcopal Church, 
at a Convention of the said Church in the States of New York, 



APPENDIX C. 279 

New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia and 
South Carolina,' may be used by the Church in such of the 
states as have adopted or may adopt the same in their partic- 
ular Conventions, till further provision is made, in this case, 
by the first General Convention which shall assemble with 
sufficient power to ratify a Book of Common Prayer for the 
Church in these states. 

" X. No person shall be ordained, until due examination had 
by the Bishop and two Presbyters, and exhibiting testimonials 
of his moral conduct for three years past, signed by the Min- 
ister and a majority of the Vestry of the church where he has 
last resided ; or permitted to officiate as a Minister in this 
Church until he has exhibited his letters of ordination, and 
subscribed the following declaration — ' I do believe the Holy 
Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be the word of 
God, and to contain all things necessary to our salvation : 
And I do»solemnly engage to conform to the doctrines and 
worship of the Protestant Episcopal Church in these United 
States.' 

" XI. The Constitution of the Protestant Episcopal Church 
in the United States of America, when ratified by the Church 
in a majority of the states assembled in General Convention, 
with sufficient power for the purpose of such ratification, shall 
be unalterable by the Convention of any particular state, 
which hath been represented at the time of such ratification." 



28o 



APPENDIX D. 



APPENDIX D. 



CONSTITUTION AS ADOPTED IN SESSION OF AUGUST 8, 1 789, 
AND IN SESSION OF OCTOBER 2, 1789, 

N. B. — The differences between the Constitutions recorded in the 
Journal as of August and of October, 1789, are here to be observed 
by comparison of parallel columns. Except as noted in the right- 
hand column, the Constitution of October is the same as that which 
had been adopted in August. (Bioren, pp. 61-63, 75-77.) 



August, 1789. 

A General Constitution of 
the Protestant Episcopal 
Church in the United States 
of America. 

Art. I. There shall be a 
General Convention of the 
Protestant Episcopal Church 
in the United States of 
America, on the first Tuesday 
of August, in the year of our 
Lord 1792, and on the first 
Tuesday of August, in 
every third year afterwards 
in such place as shall be 
determined by the Conven- 
tion ; and special meetings 
may be called at other times, 
in the manner hereafter to be 
provided for ; and this Church, 
in a majority of the states 
which shall have adopted this 
constitution, shall be repre- 
sented, before they shall pro- 
ceed to business : except that 



October, 1789. 
The Constitution of the Prot- 
estant Episcopal Church in the 
United States of America. 



tem- 



second Tuesday of Septem- 
ber, in the year of our Lord 
1792, and on the second 
Tuesday of September in 
every third year afterwards 



APPENDIX D. 28] 

August, 1789. October, 1789. 

the representation from two 
states shall be sufficient to 
adjourn ; and in all business 
of the Convention, freedom of 
debate shall be allowed. 

Art. 2. The church in each 
state shall be entitled to a 
representation of both the 
Clergy and the Laity, which 
representation shall consist of 
one or more deputies, not ex- 
ceeding four of each order, 
chosen by the Convention of 
the state ; and in all questions, and, 
when required by the Clerical, 
or Lay representation from 
any state, each order shall 
have one vote ; and the ma- 
jority of suffrages by states 
shall be conclusive in each 
order, provided such majority 
comprehend a majority of the 
states represented in that 
order : The concurrence of 
both orders shall be neces- 
sary to constitute a vote of 
the Convention. If the Con-, 
vention of any state should 
neglect or decline to appoint 
clerical deputies, or if they 
should neglect or decline to 
appoint lay deputies, or if 
any of those of either order 
appointed should neglect to 
attend, or be prevented by 
sickness or any other acci- 



2i52 



APPENDIX D. 



August, 1789. 
dent, such state shall, never- 
theless be considered as duly- 
represented by such deputy 
or deputies as may attend, 
whether lay or clerical. And 
if, through the neglect of the 
Convention of any of the 
churches w^hich shall have 
adopted, or may hereafter 
adopt this constitution, no 
deputies, either lay or cleri- 
cal, should attend at any gen- 
eral convention, the church 
in such state shall neverthe- 
less be bound by the acts of 
such Convention. 

Art. 3. The Bishops of this 
church, when there shall be 
three or more, shall, when- 
ever general conventions are 
held, form a house of revision, 
and when any proposed act 
shall have passed in the gen- 
eral convention, the same 
shall be transmitted to the 
house of revision, for their 
concurrence. And if the same 
shall be sent back to the Con- 
vention, with the negative or 
non-concurrence of the house 
of revision, it shall be again 
considered in the General 
Convention, and if the Con- 
vention shall adhere to the 
said act, by a majority of 
three-fifths of their body, it 



October, 1789. 



General Convention ; 



Art. 3. The Bishops of this 
church, when there shall be 
three or more, shall, when- 
ever General Conventions are 
held, form a separate House, 
with a right to originate and 
propose acts, for the concur- 
rence of the House of Dep- 
uties, composed of Clergy and 
Laity ; and when any pro- 
posed act shall have passed 
the House of Deputies, the 
same shall be transmitted to 
the House of Bishops, who 
shall have a negative there- 
upon, unless adhered to by 
four-fifths of the other House ; 
and all acts of the Conven- 
tion shall be authenticated by 
both Houses. And, in all 



APPENDIX D. 



283 



August, 1789. 
shall become a law to all in- 
tents and purposes, notwith- 
standing the non-concurrence 
of the house of revision ; and 
all acts of the Convention 
shall be authenticated by both 
houses. And in all cases, the 
house of Bishops shall signify- 
to the Convention their appro- 
bation or disapprobation, the 
latter with their reasons in 
writing, within two days after 
the proposed act shall have 
been reported to them for 
concurrence, and in failure 
thereof it shall have the opera- 
tion of a law. But until 
there shall be three or more 
Bishops, as aforesaid, any 
Bishop attending a General 
Convention shall be a mem- 
ber ex officio, and shall vote 
with the Clerical Deputies of 
the state to which he belongs : 
And a Bishop shall then 
preside. 

Art. 4. The Bishop or Bish- 
ops in every state shall be 
chosen agreeably to such 
rules, as shall be fixed by the 
Convention of that state : 
And every Bishop of this 
Church shall confine the ex- 
ercise of his Episcopal office 
to his proper diocese or 
district, unless requested to 



October, 1789. 
cases, the House of Bishops 
shall signify to the Conven- 
tion their approbation or dis- 
approbation (the latter, with 
their reasons in writing) with- 
in three days after the pro- 
posed act shall have been 
reported to them for concur- 
rence ; and, in failure thereof, 
it shall have the operation of 
a law. But until there shall 
be three or more Bishops, as 
aforesaid, any Bishop attend- 
ing a General Convention 
shall be a member, ex officio, 
and shall vote with the cleri- 
cal deputies of the state to 
which he belongs ; and a 
Bishop shall then preside. 



rules as 



church 
episcopal 

district ; 



284 



APPENDIX D. 



August, 1789. October, 1789. 

ordain, or confirm, or per- 
form any other act of the 
Episcopal office, by any episcopal 
Church destitute of a Bishop, church 

Art. 5. A Protestant Epis- 
copal Church in any of the 
United States, not now rep- 
resented, may, at any time 
hereafter, be admitted, on 
acceding to this constitu- 
tion. 

Art. 6. In every state, the 
mode of trying Clergymen clergymen 
shall be instituted by the Con- 
vention of the Church therein, church 
At every trial of a Bishop, 
there shall be one or more ot 
the Episcopal order present ; episcopal 
and none but a Bishop shall 
pronounce sentence of deposi- 
tion or degradation from the 
ministry on any Clergyman, 
whether Bishop, or Presbyter, 
or Deacon. 

Art. 7. No person shall be 
admitted to holy orders, until 
he shall have been examined 
by the Bishop, and by two Bishop and 
Presbyters, and shall have ex- 
hibited such testimonials and 
other requisites, as the canons, 
in that case provided, may 
direct. Nor shall any person 
be ordained, until he shall ordained until 
have subscribed the following 
declaration : " I do believe the 



APPENDIX D. 



285 



Minister of this Church, 



August, 1789, October, 1789. 

holy scriptures of the Old and 
New Testament to be the word 
of God, and to contain all 
things necessary to salvation : 
And I do solemnly engage to 
conform to the doctrines and 
worship of the Protestant Epis- 
copal Church in these United 
States." No person ordained 
by a foreign Bishop shall be 
permitted to officiate as a min- 
ister of this church, until he 
shall have complied with the 
canon or canons in that case 
provided, and have also sub- 
scribed the aforesaid declara- 
tion. 

Art. 8. A Book of Common 
Prayer, Administration of the 
Sacraments, and other Rites 
and Ceremonies of the Church, 
articles of religion, and a 
form and manner of making, 
ordaining and consecrating 
Bishops, Priests and Deacons, 
when established by this or 
a future General Convention, 
shall be used in the Protestant 
Episcopal Church in these 
states, which shall have 
adopted this Constitution. 

Art. 9. This Constitution 
shall be unalterable, unless in 
General Convention, by the 
Church in a majority of the church 
states, which may have adopt- 



A book of common prayer, 
administration of the sacra- 
ments, and other rites and 
ceremonies of the church, 



those states 

constitution, 
constitution 



286 



APPENDIX D. 



August, 1789. 
ed the same ; and all altera- 
tions shall be first proposed 
in one General Convention, 
and made known to the sev- 
eral State Conventions, before 
they shall be finally agreed to 
or ratified in the ensuing Gen- 
eral Convention. 

In General Convention, in 
Christ Church, Philadelphia, 
August the eighth^ one thou- 
sand seven hundred and 
eighty nine. 



October, 1789. 



same 



William White, D.D. Bishop 
of the Protestant Episcopal 
Church in the Common- 
wealth of Pennsylvania, and 
President of the Conven- 
tion. 

New York, Abraham Beach, 
D.D. Assistant Minister of 
Trinity Church, in the city 
of New York, etc. 

New Jersey, William Frazer, 
etc. 

Pennsylvania, Samuel Ma- 
gaw, D.D., etc. 

Delaware, Joseph Couden, 
A.M., etc. 

Maryland, William Smith, 
D.D., etc. 



Conventions before 
agreed to, 
or ratified. 

Done in General Conven- 
tion of the Bishops, Clergy 
and Laity of the Church, the 
second day of October, 1789, 
a7id ordered to be transcribed 
into the Book of Records, and 
subscribed, which was done 
as follows, viz. 

In the House of Bishops. 

Samuel Seabury, D.D, Bishop 
of Connecticut. 

William White, D.D. Bishop 
of the Protestant Episcopal 
Church, Pennsylvania. 

In the House of Clerical and 
Lay Deputies. 

William Smith, D.D. Presi- 
dent of the House of Cleri- 
cal and Lay Deputies, and 
Clerical Deputy from Mary- 
land. 

New Hampshire and 

Massachusetts, Samuel Par- 
ker, D.D., etc. 

Connecticut, Bela Hubbard, 
A.M., etc. 



APPENDIX D. 



287 



August, 1789. 
Virginia, Robert Andrews. 
South Carolina, Robert 
Smith, etc. 



October, 1789. 
New York, Benjamin Moore, 

D.D., etc. 
New Jersey, Uzal Ogden, etc. 
Pennsylvania, Samuel Ma- 

gaw, D.D., etc. 
Delaware, Joseph Cowden, 

A.M., etc. 
Maryland, John Bisset, A.M., 

etc. 
Virginia, John Bracken, etc. 
South Carotin a, V^ohtrXSmith^ 

D.D., etc. 



288 APPENDIX E. 



APPENDIX E. 

THE CONSTITUTION AS PRINTED WITH THE DIGEST OF 
CANONS OF GENERAL CONVENTION, 1 893. 

CONSTITUTION ADOPTED IN GENERAL CONVENTION IN PHILADELPHIA, 
OCTOBER, 1789. 

Article i. 

There shall be a General Convention of the Protestant 
Episcopal Church in the United States of America on the first 
Wednesday in October, in every third year, from the year of 
our Lord one thousand eight hundred and forty one ; and in 
such place as shall be determined by the Convention ; and in 
case there shall be an Epidemic disease, or any other good 
cause to render it necessary to alter the place fixed on for any 
such meeting of the Convention, the Presiding Bishop shall 
have it in his power to appoint another convenient place (as 
near as may be to the place so fixed on) for the holding of 
such Convention : and special meetings may be called at 
other times, in the manner hereafter to be provided for ; and 
this Church, in a majority of the Dioceses which shall have 
adopted this Constitution, shall be represented before they shall 
proceed to business ; except that the representation from two 
Dioceses shall be sufficient to adjourn ; and in all business of 
the Convention freedom of debate shall be allowed. 

Article 2. 

The Church in each Diocese shall be entitled to a represen- 
tation of both the Clergy and the Laity. Such representation 
shall consist of not more than four Clergymen and four Lay- 
men, communicants in this Church, residents in the Diocese, 
and chosen in the manner prescribed by the Convention 
thereof: and in all questions when required by the Clerical 
or Lay representation from any Diocese, each Order shall 



APPENDIX E. 289 

have one vote : and the majority of suffrages by Dioceses shall 
be conclusive in each Order, provided such majority compre- 
hend a majority of the Dioceses represented in that Order. 
The concurrence of both Orders shall be necessary to consti- 
tute a vote of the House of Deputies. If the Convention of 
any Diocese should neglect or decline to appoint Clerical 
Deputies, or if they should neglect or decline to appoint Lay 
Deputies, or if any of those of either Order appointed should 
neglect to attend, or be prevented by sickness or any other 
accident, such Diocese shall nevertheless be considered as 
duly represented by such Deputy or Deputies as may attend, 
whether Lay or Clerical. And if through the neglect of the 
Convention of any of the Churches which shall have adopted 
or may hereafter adopt this Constitution, no Deputies, either 
Lay or Clerical, should attend at any General Convention, the 
Church in such Diocese shall nevertheless be bound by the 
acts of such Convention. - 

Article 3. 

The Bishops of this Church, when there shall be three or 
more, shall, whenever General Conventions are held, form a 
separate House, with a right to originate and propose acts 
for the concurrence of the House of Deputies composed of 
Clergy and Laity ; and when any proposed act shall have 
passed the House of Deputies, the same shall be transmitted 
to the House of Bishops, who shall have a negative there- 
upon ; and all acts of the Convention shall be authenticated 
by both Houses. And in all cases the House of Bishops shall 
signify to the House of Deputies their approbation or disap- 
probation (the latter with their reasons in writing) within 
three days after the proposed act shall have been reported to 
them for concurrence ; and in failure thereof, it shall have 
the operation of a law. But until there shall be three or 
more Bishops, as aforesaid, any Bishop attending a General 
Convention shall be a member ex officio, and shall vote with 
the Clerical Deputies of the Diocese to which he belongs ; 
and a Bishop shall then preside. 
19 



290 APPENDIX E. 

Article 4. 

The Bishop or Bishops in every Diocese shall be chosen 
agreeably to such rules as shall be fixed by the Convention of 
that Diocese ; and every Bishop of this Church shall confine 
the exercise of his Episcopal Office to his proper Diocese, 
unless requested to ordain, or confirm, or perform any other 
act of the Episcopal Office in another Diocese by the Ecclesi- 
astical authority thereof. 

Article 5. 

A Protestant Episcopal Church in any of the United States, 
or any Territory thereof, not now represented, may, at any 
time hereafter, be admitted on acceding to this Constitution ; 
and a new Diocese, to be formed from one or more existing 
Dioceses, may be admitted under the following restrictions, 
viz.; — 

No new Diocese shall be formed or erected within the limits 
of any other Diocese, nor shall any Diocese be formed by 
the junction of two or more Dioceses, or parts of Dioceses, 
unless with the consent of the Bishop and Convention of each 
of the Dioceses concerned, as well as of the General Conven- 
tion, and such consent shall not be given by the General Con- 
vention until it has satisfactory assurance of a suitable pro- 
vision for the support of the Episcopate in the contemplated 
new Diocese. 

No such new Diocese shall be formed which shall contain 
less than six Parishes, or less than six Presbyters who have 
been for at least one year canonically resident within the 
bounds of such new Diocese, regularly settled in a Parish or 
Congregation, and qualified to vote for a Bishop. Nor shall 
such new Diocese be formed if thereby any existing Diocese 
shall be so reduced as to contain less than twelve Parishes, or 
less than twelve Presbyters who have been residing therein 
and settled and qualified as above mentioned ; Provided that 
no city shall form more than one Diocese. 

In case one Diocese shall be divided into two or more Dio- 



APPENDIX E. 291 

ceses, the Diocesan of the Diocese divided may elect the one 
to which he will be attached, and shall thereupon become the 
Diocesan thereof ; and the Assistant Bishop, if there be one, 
may elect the one to which he will be attached ; and if it be 
not the one elected by the Bishop, he shall be the Diocesan 
thereof. 

Whenever the division of a Diocese into two or more Dio- 
ceses shall be ratified by the General Convention, each of the 
Dioceses shall be subject to the Constitution and Canons of 
the Diocese so divided, except as local circumstances may 
prevent, until the same may be altered in either Diocese by 
the Convention thereof. And whenever a Diocese shall be 
formed out of two or more existing Dioceses, the new Diocese 
shall be subject to the Constitution and Canons of that one of 
the said existing Dioceses to which the greater number of 
Clergymen shall have belonged prior to the erection of such 
new Diocese, until the same may be altered by the Convention 
of the new Diocese. 

Article 6. 

The mode of trying Bishops shall be provided by the Gen- 
eral Convention. The Court appointed for that purpose shall 
be composed of Bishops only. In every Diocese, the mode of 
trying Presbyters and Deacons may be instituted by the Con- 
vention of the Diocese. None but a Bishop shall pronounce 
sentence of admonition, suspension, or degradation from the 
Ministry, on any Clergyman, whether Bishop, Presbyter or 
Deacon. 

Article 7. 

No person shall be admitted to Holy Orders until he shall 
have been examined by the Bishop, and by two Presbyters, 
and shall have exhibited such testimonials and other requisites 
as the Canons, in that case provided, may direct. Nor shall 
any person be ordained until he shall have subscribed the 
following declaration : 

I do believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New 
Testament to be the Word of God, and to contain all things 



292 APPENDIX E. 

necessary to salvation ; and I do solemnly engage to conform 

to the Doctrines and Worship of the Protestant Episcopal 

Church in the United States. 

No person ordained by a foreign Bishop shall be permitted 
to officiate as a Minister of this Church, until he shall have 
complied with the Canon or Canons in that case provided, 
and have also subscribed the aforesaid Declaration. 

Article 8. 

A Book of Common Prayer, Administration of the Sacra- 
ments, and other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church, Arti- 
cles of Religion, and a Form and Manner of making, ordain- 
ing and consecrating Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, when 
established by this or a future General Convention, shall be 
used in the Protestant Episcopal Church in those Dioceses 
which shall have adopted this Constitution. 

No alteration or addition shall be made in the Book of 
Common Prayer or other offices of the Church, or the Articles 
of Religion, unless the same shall be proposed in one General 
Convention, and by a resolve thereof made known to the Con- 
vention of every Diocese, and adopted at the subsequent Gen- 
eral Convention. 

Provided, however. That the General Convention shall have 
power, from time to time, to amend the Lectionary ; but no 
act for this purpose shall be valid which is not voted for by 
a majority of the whole number of Bishops entitled to seats in 
the House of Bishops, and by a majority of all the Dioceses 
entitled to representation in the House of Deputises. 

Article 9. 

This Constitution shall be unalterable, unless in General 
Convention, by the Church in a majority of the Dioceses which 
may have adopted the same ; and all alterations shall be first 
proposed in one General Convention, and made known to the 
several Diocesan Conventions, before they shall be finally 
agreed to, or ratified, in the ensuing General Convention. 



APPENDIX E. ^93 

Article io. 

Bishops for foreign countries, on due application therefrom, 
may be consecrated, with the approbation of the Bishops of 
this Church, or a majority of them; signified to the Presiding 
Bishop ; he thereupon taking order for the same, and they 
being satisfied that the person designated for the office has 
been duly chosen and properly qualified ; the Order of Conse- 
cration to be conformed, as nearly as may be, in the judgment 
of the Bishops, to the one used in this Church. Such Bishops 
so consecrated, shall not be eligible to the Office of Diocesan 
or Assistant Bishop, in any Diocese in the United States, nor 
be entitled to a seat in the House of Bishops, nor exercise any 
Episcopal authority in said States. 

Do7ie in the Getteral Conve7ition of the Bishops, Clergy 
and Laity of the Church, the 2d day of October, lySg.^ 



* This attestation clause is here placed after the Constitution as 
now existing, it is presumed for the purpose of pointing out that it is 
the same Constitution, although since frequently amended, which 
was originally adopted in the second session of 1789 ; not, of course, 
as a statement that the Constitution as it now stands was adopted at 
that time ; although from the statement by itself, one who was not 
aware of its previous history might suppose this to be the case. 



WORKS CITED. 



Andrewes, Bishop. Summary 
View of Government of Old 
and New Testament. 

American Church Review, New 
York. 

Bailey, Rev. T. J. Mission and 
Jurisdiction. 

Barbour's Reports, New York. 
Walker v. Wainwright. 

Beveridge, Bishop. Codex Cano- 
num, etc. 

Bilson, Bishop. Perpetual Gov- 
ernment of the Church. 

Bingham, Rev. Joseph. Chris- 
tian Antiquities. 

Bioren's Journals of General Con- 
vention. 

Blackstone, Sir William. Com- 
mentaries. 

Blunt's Theological and Histor- 
ical Dictionary. 

Bryce, Professor. The Holy Ro- 
man Empire. 

Constitutions, Civil and Ecclesi- 
astical. 

Church Eclectic, New York. Oc- 
tober, 1889. 

Cumberland, Bishop. Laws of 
Nature. 

Digest, Canons General Conven- 
tion. 



D wight, Professor. Introduction 
to Maine's Ancient Law. 

Dix, Rev. Dr. Morgan. The Sac- 
ramental System of the Church. 

Egar, Rev. Dr. J. H. Ecclesias- 
tical and Political Christendom. 

Field, Rev. Dr. Of the Church. 

Fulton, Rev. Dr. John, Index 
Canonum. 

Gibson, Bishop. Codex. 

Hawks, Rev. Dr. F. L. Con- 
stitution and Canons. 

Hoffman, Hon. Murray. Law 
of the Church. 

Hoist, Dr. H. von. Constitu- 
tional Law, United States of 
America. 

Hooker, Rev. Richard. Ecclesi- 
astical Polity. 

Hook's Church Dictionary. 

Illinois Reports. Chase v. Che- 
ney. 

Jackson, Dean. Works. 

Jarvis, Rev. Dr. S. F. Church of 
the Redeemed. 

Kennett's Ecclesiastical Synods. 

Kent, Chancellor. Commentaries. 

Lathbury's History of Convoca- 
tion. 

Lewis's Antiquities of the He- 
brew Republic. 



296 



WORKS CITED. 



Maine, Sir Henry Sumner. An- 
cient Law. 

Marshall, Dr. Nathaniel. Eccle- 
siastical and Civil Powers. 

Mason, Francis. Consecration of 
English Bishops. 

Outram, Rev. William. On Sac- 
rifices. 

Palmer, Rev. William. Of the 
Church of Christ. 

Palmer, Rev. William. Antiqui- 
ties of English Ritual. 

Percival's Roman Schism, Illus- 
trated. 

Potter, Archbishop. Discourse 
on Church Government. 

Puffendorf, Baron. Law of Na- 
ture and of Nations. 

Rattray, Bishop. Election of 
Bishops. 

Shea, Hon. George. Life and 
Epoch of Alexander Hamil- 
ton. 



Seabury, Bishop. Discourses. 

Seabury, Rev. Dr. Samuel. Dis- 
courses on Nature and Work of 
the Holy Spirit. 

Seabury, Rev. Dr. Samuel. The 
Continuity of the Church of 
England in the Sixteenth Cen- 
tury. 

Seabury, W. J. Sermons, Election 
of Bishop Seabury, and Civil 
Analogy. 

Seabury's Haddan, on Apostolic 
Succession. 

The Church Cyclopaedia. 

Vinton, Rev. Dr. Francis. Man- 
ual Commentary on Canon 
Law. 

Warren's Synodalia. 

Wilson, Rev. Dr. The Church 
Identified. 

Wilson, Rev. Dr. The Provin- 
cial System. 

White, Bishop. Memoirs. 



TEXTS CITED. 



Gen. iii. 15. 
iii. 16. 
iv. 26, margin. 

V. 

vi. 1-7. 

vi. 8. 

vi. I, 2. 

vii., viii. 

viii, 20-23. 

xii. 1-3. 

xiv. 18-21. 

xvii. 1-14. 

XX. 7. 

XXV. 29-34. 
Ex. xviii, I, 12. 

XX. 12. 
Numb. XXX. 3-9. 
Job i. 4, 5. 

xlii. 7-9. 
Dan. ii. 21. 

ii. 44. 

V. 18-22. 
St. Matt. i. 20. 

iii. 16, 17. 
iv. I. 

X. 

X. 5, 7- 
x. 40. 
XV. 24. 
xvi. 18. 
xvi. 19. 
xvii. 27. 
xviii. 18. 
xix. 4-6. 
xix. 28. 
xxii. 21. 
XX vi. 20. 
xxviii. 18. 
xxviii.19,20 



St. Mark iii. 13-19. 

vii. 9-13. 

xiv. 17. 
St. Luke i. 23. 

i 35. 

iv. 14, 15, 
17, 18. 

vi. 12-16. 

xii. 13, 14- 

xxii. 14. 

xxii. 19, 20. 

xxii. 29, 30. 
St. John iii. 22. 

iv. 1-4. 

xiv. 16, 17, 
26. 

XV. 16. 

xvi. 13. 

X. 17, 18. 

XX. 21-23. 

3d Ep. 9,10. 
Acts i. I. 

i. 4, 5. 
i. 8. 

i. 15-26. 
ii. 1-4. 
iv. 8. 
V. 32. 
vi. 1-6. 
viii. 14-17. 
xii. 17. 
xiii. 1-3. 
xiv. 23. 

XV. 

XV. 28, 29. 
xix. 1-5. 
xix. 1-6. 
xxi. 8. 
xxi. 18. 



Rom. viii. ii. 
xiii. 1-4 
xiii. 1-6. 

I. Cor. i. 12-17 

V. 3-5- 

V.4. 

xi. 

xi. 26. 

xii. 4-12. 

xii. 20, 21. 

xii. 28. 

xiv. 

xiv. 26-33. 

II. Cor. ii. 10. 

viii. 23. 

X. II-16. 

xi. 13. 

xii. 16. 
Gal. i. I. 

ii. 6-10. 
ii. 7. 
ii. 9. 
Eph. ii. 20. 
iv. II. 
iv. 4-13. 
v. I, 2. 
V. 25. 
V. 33. 
vi. 2. 
vi. 4. 
vi. 5-9. 
Phil. ii. 25. 

I. Thess. iv. 15. 

II. Thess. iii. 4, 10, 

12. 

I. Tim. ii. 1, 2. 

ii. 1-3. 
vi. 4. 

II. Tim. vi. 5-9. 



298 



TEXTS CITED. 



Titus iv. 4-13. 
Heb. ii. 17. 

V. 9. 

V. 12. 

vi. 20. 

vii. 



Heb. vii. 24-28. 

ix. 14. 

xii. 16, 17. 

xii. 22, 23. 

xvi. 16,17,22,23. 
I. St. Pet. ii. 13-17. 



I. St. Pet. V. I, 2. 

V. 1-3. 

II. St. Pet. i. 20. 

ii. 5- 

III. John, 9, 10. 
Rev. i. ii. iii. 



INDEX. 



Aaron, 86. 

Aaronical, 70. 

Abel, 83. 

Abraham, 42, 84. 

Abimelech, 85. 

Adam, 42, 61. 

Africa, 119. 

Alexandria, 120. 

Allegiance to civil rulers, 36, 204. 

American civil analogies, 186-255. 

American system, 182, 212. 

American system, special mission 

of, 266. 
Amram, 86. 
Analysis of episcopate and 

Church, 163, 166. 
Andrewes, 87, 107. 
Annunciation, 62, 134. 
Antioch, 118, 120. 
Appropriation of name Church, 53 
Apostolic canons, 134, 159, 228. 
Article XXVIII., 94. 
Ascension, 72, 112. 
Assistant Bishops, seats of, in 

House, 249, 250. 



Bacon, 90. 

Bailey, 132. 

Baltimore, 129. 

Baptism, 43, 65. 

Barnabas, 108, 117. 

Beveridge, 150, 158, 162, 229. 

Bilson, 44. 

Bingham, 118, 156, 157, 176, 178, 

199. 208. 
Blackstone, 25, 26, 38, 106, 107. 



Blessed Virgin, 62, 63, 129. 
Blunt, 123. 
Bramhall, 125. 
Bryce, 34. 
Bulls, 129. 



Caesar, 210. 

Cain, 42, 83, 85. 

Canon, general sense and defini- 
tion of, 39, 40. 

Carroll, 127. 

Carthage, 119. 

Catholic Church, distinguished, 
46. 

Centre of unity, 49. 

Ceremonies, 39, 47. 

Chapter, 134, 136. 

Charge of people, 132. 

Chase, 38. 

Chase v. Cheney, 142. 

Chorepiscopus, 250. 

Christian dispensation, 42, 54. 

Church, characteristic of, in sev- 
eral dispensations, 42. 

Church, various senses of word, 
216, 217. 

Church, in most comprehensive 
sense, 41. 

Church and State, 30, 32, 34. 

Church in State, Diocese, 205. 

Church in State, two-fold right of, 
205. 

Church, a society, not a force, 
nor Christ, 95. 

Church, visible and invisible, 54, 
59, 88, 96. 

Church representative, in Eng- 
land, 181. 



300 



INDEX. 



Church representative, sketch of 
history of, 1 71-179. 

Church representative, American, 
256. 

Cilicia, 117. 

Civil analogy, 167-255. 

Civil environment, i8g. 

Claggett, 127, 253. 

Coghlan, 127. 

Cohath, 86. 

Colonial Church, tendencies of, 
189. 

Component parts of ecclesiastical 
union, 256, 258-261. 

Common bond, 48. 

Community resulting from fed- 
eral union, 243. 

Community resulting from eccle- 
siastical union, 263-265. 

Communities, distinct, 32. 

Condition of moral being, 23, 25. 

Conge d'eslire, 134. 

Congregational theory, 92. 

Concurrent majority, dangers ob- 
viated by, 235-237. 

Concurrent majority, grasp of 
principle of, 235. 

Connecticut and Pennsylvania, 206. 

Connecticut case, 196, 197, 203, 
206, 207. 

Connecticut, position of, 207. 

Consent of governed, 146, 147. 

Constantine, 175, 178. 

Constantinople, 178. 

Constitution or constitutions, 215. 

Constitution, mode of alteration, 
220. 

Constitution, in what sense crea- 
tive? 215-217. 

Constitution, powers conferred in, 
220-225. 

Constitutional divisions, 48, 167, 
170. 

Conventional and Episcopal sys- 
tems, 206. 

Conventional compared with con- 
vocational system, 185, 189. 

Conventionality, visible form, 55. 

Convocation, sketch of, 182-185. 



Corpus Christi mysticum, 76, 77. 
Corpus Christi verum, 76, 77. 
Councils, authority of, 161, 162. 
Covenant, 41, 55. 
Creation, 24. 
Creeds, 48. 
Crete, 133. 
Cumberland, 26. 



Dakota, 241. 
Daniel, 43. 

Degrees of advancement, 64-73. 
Departments of government, 27. 
Dependencies in ecclesiastical sys- 
tem, 244, 245. 
Dependence on episcopate, 204. 
Development, parallel of, 238- 

.253. 
Diagram of Levitical succession, 

86. 
Diocesan state idea, 203. 
Diocesan synods, 155, 172, 173. 
Diocesan jurisdiction, 127. 
Diocesan unit, 195. 
Dioceses, being and constitution 

of, as associate/i, 263, 264. 
Dioceses, component parts of 

ecclesiastical union, 256-261. 
Dispensation, 33, 54. 
Distinctions between Bishops, 

172, 173, 176. 
Distribution of powers, 73, 74. 
Distribution of Church into civil 

divisions, 167. 
Dix, 94. 

Duality of government, 192. 
Dunkeld, 134. 
Duty of consulting inferior orders 

and laity, 115. 
Dwight, 80. 



Ecclesia, 43. 

Ecclesiastical union, 201, 202, 203, 
208, 217, 218, 220, 2-14, 245, 
246, 247, 251, 252, 253, 258, 
263, 



INDEX. 



301 



Edinburgh, 134. 

Edward I., 183. 

Egar, 177. 

Elizabeth, 125. 

Empire, Holy Roman, 34. 

Enos, 42. 

Entirety of power in episcopate, 

74. 

Entities, moral, 24. 

Epaphroditus, 108. 

Ephesus, 120. 

Episcopal and conventional sys- 
tems, 206. 

Episcopal constitution of Ameri- 
can Church, 1S8. 

Episcopal executive, 226, 227. 

Episcopal negative, 226, 227. 

Episcopal quorum, 253, 254. 

Episcopal representation, 247- 
254, 261, 262. 

Episcopal theory, 92. 

Episcopate, 49, 93, 127, 130, 143, 
144, 145, 148, 151, 152, 154, 
158, 162, 163, 164. 

Erastian, 34. 

Esau, 85. 

Evans, 141. 

Extension of incarnation, 95, 96. 



Faith, sacraments, and minis- 
try, 48. 
Fall, 41. 
Family, 27, 30. 
Father, 27. 

Federal idea, 149-166. 
Federation, parallel of, 199-212. 
Field, 41, 44, 45, 46, 47, 79. 
Franklin, 90. 
Fulton, 134, 159, 160, 177. 



Gershom, 86. 
Gibson, 184. 
Grotius, 26 



H 

Haddan, 125. 

Hamilton, life and epoch, 192, 

209, 210. 
Harris's Justinian, 26. 
Harrison, 141. 
Hawks, 253, 254. 
Hawks and Perry, 197. 
Heavenly call, 45. 
Henry VIII. , 182, 184, 250. 
Hierarchy, American Roman, 129. 
Hindoo customary law, 87. 
Hoffman, 225, 254. 
Hook, 136, 137. 
Hooker, 132, 133, 156. 
Hopkins, 241 
House of revision, 226. 
Husband, 27, 192. 



I 



Ignatius, 154, 156. 
Immaculate Conception, 131. 
Imperial period, 177. 
Imperializing influences, 212. 
Imposition, 24. 
Indefectibility, 43. 
Indelibility, 74. 
Independent theory, 92. 
Inherent sovereignty, notion of, 

208, 215. 
Instruction, right of, 234, 235. 
Intrusion, 126, 128. 
Iowa, Bishop of, 188. 
Izhar, 86. 



J 



Jackson, 29, 41, 69, 81, 82, 84, 
116, 117, 171, 217. 

Jarvis, 23, 41, 42, 44. 

James, 119. 

Jerusalem, 117, 119. 

Jethro, 85. 

Jewish institutions, typical char- 
acter of, 33. 

Job, 83, 85. 

John Baptist, 65. 



302 



INDEX. 



John, 68, 98, 114, 117. 

Joseph, 62. 

Jude, 109. 

Judaic parallel, 33. 

Judas, 98, 117. 

Judaism, 46, 

Judiciary, parallel of, 237, 238, 

Jurisdiction, 75, 123-142. 

Jurisdiction, policy of extension 
of, 241-247. 

Jurisdiction, habitual and actual, 
123. 

Jurisdiction, original extent in 
two systems, 238-241. 

Jurisdiction, coercive and spirit- 
ual, 137. 

Jurisdiction of English episco- 
pate, 205. 

Jurisdiction, ecclesiastical, in civil 
courts, 137-142. 

Jurisdiction, concurrent and com- 
plementary, 32, 36. 
"Justinian, 26. 

K 

Kennett, 155, 172, 173, 178. 
Kent, 233, 234. 



Lathbury, 155. 

Law, moral and positive, 36. 

Law of nature and nations, 24, 

26. 
Legislative regulation of judicial 

function, 237, 238. 
Levi, 86. 
Lewis. 87. 

Limitations, 113-122. 
Limits, territorial and personal, 

117. 
Localization of mission, 133. 
London, Bishop of, 188, 200, 

201. 
Love of country, 211. 
Luke, 68, 97, 98, 113. 
LuUworth Castle, 129. 
Luther, 90. 



M 



Madison, 228, 257. 

Maine, 80, 83. 

Majority, numerical and concur- 
rent, 228-235. 

Marriage, 23. 

Mark, 97, 98, 

Marks and notes, 46. 

Marshall, 76. 

Maryland, 127. 

Mason, 107, 117, 132, 133. 

Matthew, 44, 97,98, 114. 

Mediatorial kingdom, 61, 86. 

Melchizedek, 73, 84. 

Merari, 86. 

Metropohtans, 173,176. 

Midian, 85. 

Meletius, 118. 

Ministry mediates between Christ 
and Church, 103. 

Ministry, powers of, 60, 74. 

Miracles, 105, 107. 

Missionary jurisdictions not com- 
ponent parts of ecclesiastical 
union, 262. 

Missionary system, development 
of, 246. 

Missionary society, canonically 
chartered, 246. 

Missionary Bishops, seats of, in 
house, 250-253, 262. 

Mission and jurisdiction, 124, 131. 

Mission, Anglican and Roman, 
130, 131. 

Moses, 42. 

Monarchical period, 198. 

Mystical theory, 94. 

Modern notion (St. John, xx. 21- 
23\ 98-100. 

Moral entities, 24. 

Moore, 249. 

Mosaic, 4-, 54- 



N 



Name Church, 52-59. 

Names, not necessarily notes, 58. 

Natural being, 24, 



INDEX. 



Z^l 



New York, division of diocese of, 

242. 
Neighborhood, 201, 204. 
Nice, 135. 
Noah, 42, 83, 84. 
Nursery, 262. 



ObUgation, 25. 

Official authority, ordinary, 105. 
Official life of Christ, 61. 
Order and mission, 123. 
Orders, Roman, 75. 
Organization, parallel of, 213-223. 
Otho and Othobon, 215, 218. 
Outram, 70, 83. 



Paganism, 46. 

Palmer, 50, 123, 126. 

Papacy, 32. 34, 179, 181. 

Papal infallibility, 131. 

Papal infallibility, compared with 

congregational, g6. 
Parallel of diaconate, 67. 
Parallel of episcopate, 67. 
Parallel of priesthood, 68-72. 
Parliamentarianism ecclesiastical, 

262. 
Parties, titles of American, 212, 

213. 
Passive obedience, 38. 
Patriarchal, 42, 54, 85, 175, 
Paul, 108, 109, no, 117, 119. 
Paulinus, 118. 
Pennsylvania and Connecticut, 

206. 
Pentecost, 43, 62, 102. 
Pentecostal gifts according to 

vocation, 102. 
Percival, 171. 

Periods of official life, 64-69. 
Permanent chief office, 88, 
Perry. 188. 

Peter, 84, 109, 115, 117, 119. 
Pius IV., 131, 
Pius VI., 129. 



Philip, 109. 

Philippians, 108. 

Plan for obtaining consecration. 
195. 19S. 

Plato, 89. 

Pope's heifer, 79. 

Positive law, divine, ecclesiasti- 
cal, civil, 36, 37. 

Potter, 103, 104, 106, III, 115, 
120, 134, I43> 151. 

Power of order, 74. 

Powers ceded, 143, 148. 

Powers of the Church, 143. 

Powers ordinary and extraordi- 
nary, 105, no. 

Powers of ministry, parallels 
with Christ and Apostles, 60, 74. 

Prelates, greater and lesser, 182. 

Presiding Bishop, 227, 228. 

President, election of, 232, 233. 

Presbyterian theory, 92. 

Provost, 207, 228, 249. 

Priesthood of Levi, 86. 

Priesthood, our Lord's consecra- 
tion to, 69, 72. 

Primitive period, 172. 

Protestant societies, 53. 

Prophets, 81. 

Provincial system, 152, 157, 177. 

Puffendorf, 24. 

Puritans, 33, 189. 



R 



Rama, Bishop of, I2g. 
Rattray, 134. 
Redeemer, 41, 43. 
Redemption, 41, 43. 
Regal power, root of, 81. 
Republic of United States, 198, 

199. 231, 232. 
Republican period, 180. 
Representation and legislation, 

parallels of, 235, 237. 
Representation, moral and legal 

considerations respecting, iqo, 

193- 
Rubrics, 39. 



304 



INDEX. 



Sacramental system, 94. 

Salamis, 117. 

Samaritans, 64. 

Sanction, 25, 27, 37. 

Saul, 117, 

Seabury, 69, 90, 125, 134, 145, 
189, 197, 200, 202, 206, 207, 
228. 

Selection, 41. 

Seleucia, 117. 

Senators, 233, 234. 

Seth, 42. 

School, 30. 

School of philosophy, 89. 

Schools of thought, 192. 

Scholastic distinctions, 74, 79. 

Scotland 134. 

Scottish Church, 197. 

Shea, 192, 209. 

Shem, 84. 

Society, 23. 

Socrates, 89. 

Social union, 90. 

Society for Propagating the Gos- 
pel, 189. 

Sphere, 30. 

Spiritual unity, 90. 

Standing committee, 136. 

States, British recognition of, 209. 

States, confederacy of, 209. 

States in union, 209, 210. 

States in empire, 192. 

States — relation to general gov- 
ernment, 210. 

Subordination of individual 
Bishop to episcopate due to 
what ? 152. 

Suffragan, 249, 250. 

Supernatural presidency, 81, 83. 

Syria, 117. 



Ten Canons, case of the, 222- 

225. 
Territory, Church in, 259, 260. 



Theocracy, 32, 34. 

Theories of Church and ministry, 

88-96. 
Theodoret, 118. 
Theodosius, 175. 
Thomas, loi. 
Timothy, 105, 106. 
Titus, 105, 108, 133, 
Trent, 76. 
Triple cord, 227. 
Triple consent, 225, 226. 
Triple concurrence, 235. 



U 



Union of visible Churches, 171. 
Unity of authority in ecclesiasti- 
cal system, 256-267. 
Unity of the Church, 48, 49, 50. 
Unity and union, go, 91. 
Unit in analysis, 163-166. 
Universal sovereigns, 34. 
Uzziel, 86. 



Vespasian, 175. 

Vinton, 222, 224, 225, 253, 254. 
Vincentius Lirinensis, 162. 
Von Hoist, 142, 239, 240. 



W 

Wake, 185. 

Walker v. Wainwright, 142. 

Walmsley, 129, 130. 

Warren, 185. 

Washington, 90. 

Weld, 129. 

White, 193, 199, 202, 207, 214, 

228, 253. 
Wilson, 59, 152, 177. 
Woodbury, 197. 



